Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Northern Ireland

Mr. Merchant: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last visited Northern Ireland to discuss the current security situation; and if he will make a statement. [14624]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I visited Northern Ireland on 15 to 16 August 1994, when I met the General Officer Commanding, Northern Ireland and his senior officers to discuss operational matters.

Mr. Merchant: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on being able to redeploy some troops out of Northern Ireland—an early dividend of the peace process. However, can he reassure the House that, whatever the results of troop redeployments, there will not be an overall reduction in the strength of the British Army?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes, I am happy to give such an unequivocal assurance. I can state categorically that, if the position in Northern Ireland were to permit further reductions in troop levels in Northern Ireland, that would not lead to any reductions in the size of the services. It would enable us to provide more time for training, create a position in which there was less pressure on our troops and enable them to have more time with their families.

Mr. Trimble: I urge the Secretary of State to proceed very cautiously in any rundown of troop levels in Northern Ireland, especially when there are so many uncertainties and while terrorist organisations remain in existence and continue to be active, as evidenced by the shooting in south Belfast at the weekend, by yet another savage beating-up in Strabane yesterday and by the attacks on the homes of five prison officers in my constituency last night. Those incidents demonstrate that the organisations are still there and that it is not enough to tackle the issue of decommissioning of weapons without dealing with the disbandment of the terrorists.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is right to advise caution. He can take comfort from the fact that it is now, about six months after the beginnings of the ceasefire, that we have withdrawn the first roulement battalion. Any further changes will be based on the operational and security advice of the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and of the General Officer Commanding,

Northern Ireland. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, if we err, we shall err on the side of caution, for precisely the reasons that the hon. Gentleman states.

Lady Olga Maitland: I accept the decision to bring the battalions back to the mainland, but does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is essential that they must be on standby duty, and that we must have the facility to return them to Northern Ireland, should the need ever arise?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes, my hon. Friend is correct. The Drummadd roulement battalion, which we have withdrawn to the mainland, was one of two roulement battalions first deployed to Northern Ireland as recently as 1991 and 1992. My hon. Friend can assume that, if it were necessary to redeploy it back to Northern Ireland, that could happen very quickly indeed. The battalion that has been withdrawn was due to finish its tour in April 1995. The successor battalion continues to train on the basis that it might be required, and would be available to go if that were necessary.

Ministry of Defence Police

Ms Rachel Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the MOD police. [14625]

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): The Ministry of Defence police is a disciplined body of about 5,000 civilian police officers, who are also civil servants. It is a national police force with full constabulary powers and all its officers are trained to carry arms.

Ms Squire: Does the Minister agree that full and detailed information should now be provided about the future of the Ministry of Defence police, as members of the force have received only bland general assurances? Does the Minister further agree that the police force performs a unique dual-purpose function throughout the country, a combination of police and security roles? Will he assure the House that the future of the force at UK-wide defence establishments is secure?

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and I understand completely her desire to resolve the difficulties at Rosyth. Although a number of MDP will remain at Rosyth, interim reductions are planned, as she knows, for October 1995 and January 1996, but no final decisions have yet been taken.
On the other half of the hon. Lady's question, I entirely endorse her opinions. Ministry of Defence police are essential protection for Ministry of Defence property, for equipment and for the men and women and their families who live and work on the defence estate. The recent Blelloch study firmly underlined the continuing need for the Ministry of Defence police, whose services we greatly value.

Mr. Key: Will my hon. Friend take it from me that the Ministry of Defence police will always be welcome in Wiltshire, where they perform an important function, not just within the Ministry of Defence estate, but at the vital


interface between the civilian, the Home Office police force and the rest of the community? Their presence is welcome as a deterrent against crime.

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. The Ministry of Defence police are an important part of any of the communities where there is a defence presence. They constitute the sixth largest police force in the United Kingdom; they have full constabulary powers and they operate extremely effectively with our own ordinary local police. I am pleased to endorse my hon. Friend's views and am most grateful to him for drawing them to the attention of the House.

Officers (Ethnic Origin)

Mr. MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many officers of (a) Asian and (b) Caribbean origin above the rank of major or equivalent serve in Her Majesty's forces. [14626]

Mr. Soames: Of the 57 per cent. of service personnel who have so far responded to my Department's survey, 23 officers above the rank of major are of Asian origin and 11 are of Afro-Caribbean origin. That survey did not include the Brigade of Gurkhas.

Mr. MacShane: I am grateful for the Minister's answer, which shows, I hope, that the Army is becoming sensitive to some of the statements that it was not fully reflecting our society. Given that the soldiers and officers whom most of the British public and overseas visitors see are from the Household Division and the Brigade of Guards, will the Minister assure us that this year's trooping the colour will be the last example of white supremacy in Her Majesty's forces?

Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman makes, in one sense, an important point. He is right to suggest that we need to encourage ethnic minorities to join the Household Division—we are conscious of the need to do that. A special Army youth team has been established to do just that and to make contact with schools, youth organisations and other groups to encourage the young to undertake adventure training and see something of Army life and Army establishments. The team's task is to target areas of high ethnic minority populations to show children in those areas the excitement of an Army career, particularly the possibility of the honour of guarding the sovereign's life.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, particularly in relation to the Royal Air Force, the only means of recruitment will be based on the individual's ability to do the job? One cannot fly a fast jet aircraft or carry out highly technical jobs or any of the other specialist activities unless one is competent. That is the only basis on which the Royal Air Force has ever recruited. It has never cared where people come from.

Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good and valid point. The armed forces are fully integrated, non-discriminatory organisations that are subject to the Race Relations Act 1976. We are keen to encourage people from wherever they come, and whatever their colour, race or creed, to join the armed forces, where they will be warmly welcomed and will find an important, challenging and worthwhile role.

Conference on Disarmament

Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to respond to the speech made by the Russian ambassador, Grigory Berdennikov, to the 23 February meeting of the conference on disarmament. [14627]

Mr. Rifkind: We noted the Russian ambassador's speech with great interest, and particularly welcomed the reaffirmation of Russian determination to secure the unconditional and indefinite extension of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

Mr. Smith: Does the Minister agree with the Russian ambassador, who argued that all nuclear weapon states should be working towards the elimination of nuclear weapons and, in the meantime, should make a commitment not to increase their existing nuclear armaments or to put into service new sorts of strategic weaponry?

Mr. Rifkind: We recognise the desirability of working towards nuclear disarmament, but we must also be realistic and realise that nuclear technology cannot be disinvented. It is necessary to ensure that any progress in the direction recommended by the hon. Gentleman is based on a verification procedure that ensures that all countries observe the new requirements, otherwise the world would be much more dangerous.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my right hon. and learned Friend concerned about the dispersal of the nuclear arms of the former Soviet Union? Is he taking action with Russia to contain that?

Mr. Rifkind: After the break-up of the Soviet Union, there were nuclear weapons in Byelorussia, Kazakhstan and the Ukraine, as well as in the Russian Federation itself. Thanks to the measures that have been taken in the past few years, that situation seems to have been resolved—particularly as a result of the Ukraine agreeing to carry out its obligations as a non-nuclear power.

Courts Martial

Mr. Galloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to review the system of courts martial within Her Majesty's armed forces; and if he will make a statement. [14628]

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Roger Freeman): The Service Discipline Acts are updated every five years by an Armed Forces Bill. The next such Bill is due in the forthcoming Session of Parliament.

Mr. Galloway: Is it not more urgent than that? A number of cases give cause for concern. My constituent Staff Sergeant John Menzies and his wife, who are in the Gallery today, are living evidence of that, as their daughter was murdered by a British soldier. The military police, who were soldiers with armbands, and the military prosecutor, who was a soldier in a wig, bungled the case and—for the interest of Tory Members—a murderer, Corporal Darren Fisher, walked free. He is still at large and is serving in Her Majesty's armed services. Is it not


about time that we overhauled the archaic, anachronistic system of military justice which is widely discredited, even within the armed services?

Mr. Freeman: I think that the whole House will understand the grief and concern of the parents concerned and anyone who is a parent will share their deep shock at their tragic loss. Therefore, I join the hon. Gentleman in offering them my condolences.
It is not up to Defence Ministers to reopen that particular trial. The trial has been held and the hon. Gentleman has his deeply held views about its progress and conclusion. It is not for a Minister of the Crown to reopen that trial.
However, I believe that when we debate the Armed Forces Bill it will be perfectly appropriate—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will take that opportunity—to raise the question of procedures used within the services, including the courts martial procedures. I am sure that it will be entirely appropriate to raise that matter on the Floor of the House or during Committee and I look forward to that occurring.

Mr. Gallie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of my constituents who was serving in Northern Ireland has been convicted of murder while undertaking an act of duty? Does my right hon. Friend sympathise with the trial judge who suggested that an option other than murder—that of culpable homicide—should have been given to the court? Does he agree that in such cases it would be more appropriate for soldiers on active service to come before courts martial?

Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out what he believes is an anomaly in the law. As he is aware, certain cases in Northern Ireland have been tried before the civil courts and not the courts martial. I am sure that my hon. Friend will take the opportunity, which I mentioned earlier in response to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), of raising the issue during parliamentary debate on the Armed Forces Bill.

Mr. Martlew: In view of the Minister's announcement today and last week that the Armed Forces Bill will come to the House in the next parliamentary Session, will he use the intervening period to consult fully with regard to court martial procedures? There is no doubt that there is a great deal of disquiet about that issue—which has been expressed today in the House—in the community and within the military. Will the Minister use that time to consult the Opposition, as we would like to take a bipartisan approach to the matter? Will the Minister guarantee that he will consult us before he lays the Bill before Parliament?

Mr. Freeman: The Government are happy to accept that suggestion. The offer of bipartisan discussions is very much in keeping with the importance of getting the Armed Forces Bill and the service disciplinary procedures right. The legislation comes before the Parliament only once every five years, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his offer.

Angola

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on British forces deployments in Angola. [14629]

Mr. Rifkind: The Government have agreed in principle to a request from the United Nations for a logistic battalion on a three-month deployment to support the peacekeeping operation in Angola. A final decision to deploy such a battalion can be considered only once we are satisfied that a ceasefire is in force and that the necessary facilities will be provided.

Mr. Arnold: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that there was a small British contingent in Angola before the election which carried out precisely the services that he has outlined. It is clear that, as a result of its excellent work at that time, that contingent will be welcomed back to Angola. Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that the commitment of that battalion will not become open-ended?

Mr. Rifkind: I most certainly can. I said in my initial response that we are considering a three-month deployment. My hon. Friend will remember the successful deployment to Rwanda, which was also on a three-month basis. The United Kingdom believes that it would be of great value to the United Nations if it considered as a matter of course that countries which contribute towards operations should contribute much more often on a time-limited basis and then be replaced by another country, if the mission continues, or that the task should be continued in some other form or fashion. Our contribution in Angola is strictly limited to three months. The United Nations understands and accepts that.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the Secretary of State join me in condemning the increasing isolationism of the United States Congress and, perhaps, the US Government? Does he also regret their condemnation and criticism of UN peacekeeping and their unwillingness to fund it? Will he take some action to try to persuade his counterpart in the United States Administration of the great importance of supporting the United Nations and its peacekeeping role for the future peace of the world?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman makes far too sweeping a condemnation in his remarks. I am entirely satisfied that the United States Government are very much aware of the need for them to support peacekeeping and to help fund those efforts. Indeed, even after the reforms that are to be introduced, the United States will still provide some 25 per cent. of the total United Nations cost of peacekeeping—a sum far greater than any other country. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that some members of Congress take a different view, and it is very important that they should fully realise the implications for the United States and for the western world as a whole if those matters are not satisfactorily resolved.

Sir Jim Spicer: Is my right hon. and learned Friend convinced that in Angola at the moment peacekeeping is the order of the day? Have both sides—the Government and UNITA—accepted that peace is what they both want, because all my information points the other way? Will he give an assurance that in no way will our troops will deployed in a situation where they might be involved in fighting?

Mr. Rifkind: A ceasefire has been in operation for some time and it has generally held, although not exclusively so. I can, however, reassure my hon. Friend that the proposal for any United Kingdom contribution is that it should be deployed to Lobito, on the coast, where


there has been no military action for many years, and where it should set up a logistics support structure for the United Nations and should have little likelihood of penetrating into the interior of the country. My hon. Friend's concerns are well understood and can be responded to with confidence.

Procurement (Cost Overruns)

Ms Church: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what actions his Department has taken to reduce cost overruns in procurement purchases. [14631]

Mr. Freeman: In the financial year 1980–81, 22 per cent. by value of our headquarters contracts were let on a cost-plus basis. Last year, the figure was 1 per cent. Hence, last year, virtually all contracts had fixed prices or arrangements to protect the Ministry against contractors' cost overruns.

Ms Church: I thank the Minister for his answer, but does he not accept that there are considerable cost overruns on a large number of projects, which show that his Department has lost financial control of much of the defence budget? Is that not another sign of the Government's failure in running the country?

Mr. Freeman: It is not the case, as I am sure the whole House will appreciate, that we have lost control of the defence budget. Far from it. Our procedures identify at an early stage where there are cost overruns, which can be due to a whole number of factors. In the development of the Eurofighter, which hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench support, with new technological development—the leading edge of new technology—that very expensive aircraft has already experienced some justifiable cost increases. The hon. Lady might wish to know that the National Audit Office recently reviewed our procurement policies. It compared the Ministry of Defence with 11 other Defence Ministries in other countries and concluded that, in Britain, the Department performed relatively well and particularly well in terms of pursuit of competition.

Mr. Brazier: Will my right hon. Friend take it from someone who worked with the defence industry before being elected that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I have no financial connection with any company in the defence industry now. Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that the transformation that has taken place in our defence procurement purchasing over the past 10 years has been remarkable? Does he agree that the only way to remove all risk of cost overruns is to give up altogether on taking any commercial or technical risk and accept second-rate, second-hand equipment?

Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that it has been this Government and this Secretary of State for Defence who have announced an augmentation—[Interruption.] Perhaps the Opposition do not want to hear this but, last July, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced an increase in the equipment budget to include highly capable aircraft and ships and artillery for the armed forces, which is among the best in the world. There is inevitably some risk in developing new weapons and weapons systems.

Mr. Fatchett: Does the Minister not realise that he sounds remarkably complacent? When the Ministry was

asked to give information on projects to the National Audit Office, I remind him that it got the calculations wrong in eight out of its 10 responses. Is it not the case that there is an overrun of 2.7 years on projects, that 80 per cent. of them have failed to reach their targets and that, on many serious and important individual procurement projects, the Government have spent literally billions of pounds of taxpayers' money on overshoots? Is this not a catalogue of unexpected and unanticipated defence cuts, waste and inefficiency on the part of a Ministry that is better known for waste than for any other characteristic?

Mr. Freeman: I understand why the hon. Gentleman, as an Opposition spokesman, has to attack—that is his job—but it would be much more effective if he got his facts right and concentrated on specific projects to explain the reasons why he thinks the Government have got it wrong. Broad-brush comments about a Department of waste cut no ice. The truth is that, as I said, the NAO has given us a clean bill of health. It regards our procedures as competent and efficient, which it would certainly not do under a Labour Government.

Mr. Mans: Bearing in mind the less than satisfactory track record of GEC in the past few years in the production of defence equipment, and especially now that we know of the waste of public money involved in the Phoenix project, will my right hon. Friend consider carrying out an audit of that company's activities in relation to the procurement of military equipment, and pay particular attention to its involvement in the ECR90 programme?

Mr. Freeman: I would not share my hon. Friend's criticisms of GEC. It is a large and efficient defence manufacturer that employs many tens of thousands of people in the defence industrial base. As for the Phoenix programme, I assure my hon. Friend that proposals are shortly to come before Ministers to decide on the future of that project, which I know that the Select Committee on Defence is considering. We need to decide whether to cancel the project and to seek contractual damages from GEC or to continue with it but protect ourselves against any increase in costs and any diminution in our contractual position in relation to the company.

Nuclear and Chemical Weapon Proliferation

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what new proposals he has to discourage nuclear and chemical weapon proliferation. [14632]

Mr. Rifkind: We are currently working towards the indefinite extension of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the effective implementation of the chemical weapons convention and are active participants in the work of the nuclear suppliers group, the missile technology control regime and the Australia group.

Mr. Flynn: Was not the attack in Tokyo by Sarin gas a reminder of the catastrophic dangers of chemical weapons—even do-it-yourself chemical weapons—now that the materials and the technology are accessible to everyone? When will we join France, Germany and the


many other countries which fully ratified the chemical weapons convention? Does not the new world chaos now need measures to build confidence and reduce fear?

Mr. Rifkind: Of course that is important. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the chemical weapons convention has been signed by 159 states, including the United Kingdom, and ratified by 27. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who is responsible for questions of ratification in this sphere, attaches considerable importance to early ratification of that treaty, and I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await further developments.

Mr. Jopling: Is the Secretary of State content that, as the dangers of the proliferation of those weapons grow, together with the proliferation of biological weapons, his discussions with the Home Office on civil defence and on the possible use of those dreadful weapons here, and our preparedness in the event of such use, are adequate?

Mr. Rifkind: As my right hon. Friend would expect, of course we try to anticipate any threat that might emerge to the country's people or territory. The question of what might happen in relation to an incident in the United Kingdom is a matter for the Home Office primarily, but he can assume that if, unfortunately, any such attempt were made, the Ministry of Defence and the armed forces would be able to make a significant contribution, both in preventing and deterring any such incident, and in dealing with its consequences.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Would we not be able to discourage nuclear weapons proliferation by others if we showed a little self-restraint? If the Polaris system provides an effective independent nuclear deterrent, why is it necessary to replace it with Trident and to have many times as many warheads? Would it not be right to limit Trident's deployment to the number of Polaris warheads that it is to replace, not least because it has approximately twice the range, is accurate within 250 m, and its warheads are capable of being independently targeted?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. and learned Gentleman is characteristically uninformed as to the consequences for the UK's nuclear weapons overall of the implementation of the Government's policy. I am able to inform the House that when, in the next few years, Trident takes over the sub-strategic nuclear role and the WE177 free-fall bomb is withdrawn, the UK will have 21 per cent. fewer nuclear warheads than it did in the 1970s, after the non-proliferation treaty came into effect. The total explosive power of those warheads will be some 59 per cent. lower than the 1970s figure. That clearly shows that the UK is playing its full part in the objectives to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers.

Dr. David Clark: Does the Secretary of State not understand that the chemical weapons convention, which the Government have singly failed to ratify, is vital not only for international security but for the country's chemical industry? Did he note that, in that most unusual presentation to the press last week of the surrogate Queen's Speech, no announcement was made of legislation to ratify the chemical weapons convention? Why not?

Mr. Rifkind: Her Majesty the Queen will announce the Queen's Speech and no such announcement has yet

been made. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the ratification of the chemical weapons convention requires the laying of legislation before the House. The time to announce what legislation the Government have in mind is the Queen's Speech. That is not taking place today.

Mr. Fabricant: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that proliferation is not the only problem in relation to nuclear weapons? The knowledge of how to produce such weapons is becoming more and more widespread. The genie cannot be put back in the bottle. Is it not right and proper, therefore, that we maintain our nuclear deterrent, and resist the siren voices of the Opposition?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct. The Opposition's views continue to fascinate me. They were against nuclear weapons at the height of the cold war, but now that the cold war is behind us, they try to persuade us that they are in favour of them. I know that the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) will wish to take an early opportunity to clarify the Opposition's view on nuclear weapons, which is a shambles.

Armed Forces (Deployment)

Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his plans for the redeployment of armed forces when they are removed from Northern Ireland. [14633]

Mr. Rifkind: The 5th Regiment, Royal Artillery returned from Northern Ireland on 22 March to its home base at Catterick. The prison guard force from the 1 Armoured Division Signals Regiment returned to its base in Germany in November.

Mr. Barnes: If peace in Northern Ireland is signed, sealed and delivered, is it envisaged that any British troops will remain in Northern Ireland? Has the Secretary of State had discussions with the Northern Ireland Office about the potential of the peace dividend that will come out of those developments?

Mr. Rifkind: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is undoubtedly yes. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom; therefore, it should go without saying that the armed forces of the United Kingdom will continue to be based there, just as they are in England, Scotland or Wales. What we are anxious to achieve, when the security situation requires and justifies it, is a withdrawal of armed forces from the streets of our cities in Northern Ireland so that Northern Ireland can share the situation that exists elsewhere in Great Britain. However, the Royal Irish Regiment has its home base in Northern Ireland, so I am sure that it and other forces will have a presence in the Province, as they do elsewhere.

Mr. Churchill: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the progressive reduction in the number of battalions deployed in Northern Ireland over the coming months, assuming that the peace holds there, will not be used as an excuse to cut the infantry battalions of the British Army?

Mr. Rifkind: In answer to an earlier question I said explicitly what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have said on other occasions—that there is no possibility of any reduction in the size of our armed forces as a result of progress in Northern Ireland. Therefore, any


progress that allows us to reduce the number of troops in Northern Ireland will be as good news for the armed forces as for the people of Ulster.

Menwith Hill Station

Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will arrange for right hon. and hon. Members to visit Menwith Hill station in north Yorkshire. [14635]

Mr. Soames: No, I shall not, for the very good operational and security reasons given by my predecessor in the House on 25 March 1994.

Mr. Madden: Is it not disgraceful that Ministers refuse to allow Members of Parliament, who are elected public representatives, and all of whom take an oath of allegiance, to visit that American spy base in north Yorkshire? Is not that disgrace equalled only by the gagging order recently issued by the Secretary of State for Defence, stopping the courts and the public from hearing that the National Security Agency of America, which controls the base, is engaged in industrial and commercial espionage to the disadvantage of the United Kingdom, and that GCHQ staff also based there are illegally tapping telephones?

Mr. Soames: I must invite the hon. Gentleman to contain his entirely pathetic paranoia and to understand that the function of that important site is regarded by Her Majesty's Government as being of the highest importance to the United Kingdom's defence strategy. The work carried out there is extremely sensitive and valuable.

Mr. John Greenway: Will my hon. Friend disregard the outburst by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and recognise that the great majority of people in north Yorkshire welcome the presence of Menwith Hill, and also of RAF Fylingdales in my constituency, and that they appreciate the important part that those two installations play in upholding peace throughout the world?

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for underlining so well the great importance of those sites to the strategic security of the United Kingdom and to our allies. I know that they are valued by all who live near them and I am grateful, as those who work in them will be, for my hon. Friend's clarion support.

Royal Arsenal Site, Woolwich

Mr. Austin-Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to visit Woolwich to discuss the future of the royal arsenal site. [14636]

Mr. Soames: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has no such plans, although my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence visited the royal arsenal site on 1 November last year.

Mr. Austin-Walker: I am sure that the Minister agrees that that site, containing 75 acres of derelict industrial land, is probably one of the largest such areas in a town centre in the United Kingdom and that its development is crucial not only to the regeneration of the locality but to the Thames gateway strategy. What progress has there been on the redevelopment, and does his Department now

accept responsibility for the restoration of the 15 listed buildings on the site? What liability does the Department accept for land contamination in the area?

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; as a constituency Member, he has rightly taken a close interest in the matter. As he knows, there are two sites at Woolwich, the east and the west. The west site covers the considerable area of 76 acres, and negotiations have commenced to transfer it to English Partnerships. I hope that they will be completed shortly, and that a development plan can be finalised in consultation with the borough of Greenwich. The smaller east site does not contain listed buildings, but it is possible that the ground is contaminated. The site will be sold on the open market, and a detailed investigation of the contamination has been commissioned.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Ministry of Defence accepts liability for site and building contamination where that is significant and has to be remedied up to the standard required by the development plan. We shall agree funding with English Partnerships, and I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman with regard to the listed buildings.

Mr. Devlin: Would not this site have been entirely redeveloped by now if the quality assurance unit at Woolwich had not so tenaciously resisted being relocated to the Preston Farm industrial estate in Stockton-on-Tees? Since the facility was disbanded by the Ministry of Defence, has not the site in Stockton-on-Tees been extensively redeveloped by Teesside development corporation, bringing more jobs than if the quality assurance unit had gone there in the first place?

Mr. Soames: I was not aware of that particular background, but, as my hon. Friend knows, an ugly queue is forming to stampede Stockton-on-Tees. Many people wish to relocate in such an excellent place, with such an admirable Member of Parliament.

Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty

Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department next expects to be able to make a contribution to nuclear arms reductions in furtherance of the Government's obligations under article 6 of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. [14637]

Mr. Rifkind: We shall consider what further contribution we might be able to make to nuclear arms reductions in the light of changing international circumstances.

Dr. Jones: This afternoon, the Secretary of State cited the withdrawal of weapons that were already reaching their retirement age as examples of the Government's contribution towards disarmament and he also gave misleading information on Trident, when he knew full well that Trident can destroy far more targets than can Polaris. Is it not clear that the Government are simply paying lip service to their obligations under article 6 of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, thus undermining its renegotiation? Why have the Government not set criteria for entering Trident in future strategic arms reduction negotiations? When will the Government stop clinging to their multi-million-pound nuclear—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady's questions are far too long. If she wishes to apply for an


Adjournment debate some time, I shall look at her application sympathetically. We are in Question Time and I urge all hon. Members to put their questions briskly.

Mr. Rifkind: The questions may have been too long, but they enabled the House to hear the true voice of the Labour party. It is perfectly clear that the Opposition Front-Bench team has been acutely embarrassed by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament sentiments which have been expressed right across the Opposition Back Benches this afternoon. I am sure that the country, as well as the House, will note that and draw the appropriate conclusion.

Mr. Streeter: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, had he been a member of parliamentary CND, he would have been at a great disadvantage in any negotiations on nuclear non-proliferation? Does he share my concern that not only the shadow Secretary of State for Defence but the Labour leader was a member of parliamentary CND? Does that not undermine their credibility over our nuclear deterrent?

Mr. Rifkind: It is certainly the case that if we want expert advice on nuclear disarmament, we have the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Secretary of State for Defence and, I think, half the shadow Cabinet who have been, and in some cases still are, active members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

Dr. Reid: This one has not been a member of CND, but he still has a damn sight more concern for getting rid of nuclear weapons than that bunch sitting on the Government Front Bench. Why is the message always negative? Why did the Government refuse a moratorium on nuclear weapons? Why did they refuse to limit the number of warheads deployed on Trident? Why did they refuse to announce the number of warheads on Trident? Why do they refuse even to ratify the chemical weapons convention? Why, for once, can they not send a positive signal to encourage a successful outcome of the renegotiation of the non-proliferation treaty?

Mr. Rifkind: I entirely accept that the hon. Gentleman is one of the few who were not members of CND. [Interruption.] But why in this exchange did we get the organ grinder—[Interruption.] Why did we not get the organ grinder and have to make do with the monkey instead? The hon. Gentleman is well aware that the reduction of nuclear weapons in a nuclear world should be treated with the greatest care and caution. [Interruption.] I am glad that the most prominent ex-member of CND, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), has now arrived.

Defence Industry

Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department takes to monitor the changing size and shape of the British defence industry. [14638]

Mr. Freeman: As one of the defence industry's major customers, my Department naturally takes a keen interest in developments that affect the size and structure of our supplier base. We therefore have regular contact with representatives of United Kingdom defence companies at all levels.

Mr. McKelvey: Does the Minister not share my concern about the plight of the highly skilled engineers

and technicians who work in the defence industry? The Government's apathetic approach shows them no future other than to transfer skills out of Britain or to go on to the scrap heap. Why does the Minister not immediately create a defence diversification agency so that we can have short-term and long-term planned transfers into other work and keep those highly skilled personnel here in this country after the work that they have done for the defence industry?

Mr. Freeman: We recognise the important skill that is in our defence industrial base. Defence Ministers have a responsibility for that. However, to create a defence diversification agency, which the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman—the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett)—said in our last debate on the Navy would merely seek to effect a culture change in industry, without the commitment of substantial—

Dr. Reid: indicated dissent.

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head; that clearly shows that what he suggests is dogma and a waste of taxpayers' money.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Barnes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 March. [14655]

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Barnes: Will the Prime Minister tell us how education authorities such as Derbyshire can have millions cut off their education budgets in real terms and be expected to manage? Will he tell them how they can do that without sacking teachers, destroying education or increasing class sizes in the area? Many angry parents, teachers and governors in Derbyshire would like to know the answer to that. It is time now for the oracle to speak.

The Prime Minister: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be the first one to acknowledge that the amount spent per pupil has risen over and above inflation by 50 per cent. since the hon. Gentleman's party was last in government and looking after education. I think that he would also concede that if local authorities were prepared to make education more of a priority than they do at present and if they were determined to make teachers a priority within their education budget rather than other matters, they would be able to meet the obligations that they were required to meet.

Mr. Walden: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the interest shown by Manchester grammar school in returning to the state sector? Will he give imaginative thought to the way in which such moves could be financed, bearing in mind that building bridges across our two-nation education system is a national priority?

The Prime Minister: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the question of bridges across the education system. I certainly agree with him about the need for


quality in education. I must say that I am not so enthusiastic about the Manchester proposal as my hon. Friend.

Mr. Blair: When Sir Bob Reid, who, after all, is a supporter of rail privatisation, says that the Government's plans are intensely bureaucratic and inordinately expensive—in short, a nightmare—should that not make any sensible Government who consider the public interest think again?

The Prime Minister: Sir Bob has expressed these views on previous occasions.

Mr. Meacher: Is he right?

The Prime Minister: I shall come in a second to whether he is right. Sir Bob has always argued for a monolithic, vertically integrated railway, but he was unable to persuade us that that was the right way to proceed. As the right hon. Gentleman presumably does not know, a number of other countries that have privatised their railways have adopted precisely the same model that we have adopted, and not the model proposed by Sir Bob.

Mr. Blair: Should not Sir Bob's words carry compelling argument with the Government as he is a supporter of privatisation? Is this not just another item on the bill for Tory dogma? With prescription and water charges up at the weekend, taxes up next week and now the fiasco of rail privatisation, is it any wonder that the British people believe, and know, that they are worse off under the Tories?

The Prime Minister: The soundbite came earlier this afternoon. The right hon. Gentleman refers to dogma. The Labour party has tried to smear every privatisation we have had, just as it is trying to smear this one. As it has been wrong on every occasion in the past, it is wrong again. The reality is that the Labour party is philosophically opposed to private ownership and, while Labour remains in the pockets of the railway unions, it will continue to put the unions first and the passengers last.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that local authorities, far from complaining about what they call cuts in education, would do far better thinking carefully about the money that they have failed to raise from the rates, the community charge and the council tax? Councils such as Lambeth have arrears running at over £100 million which they have failed to collect. Are not such councils punishing pupils as a result of their incompetence?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The Leader of the Opposition referred a few days ago to truancy. What the right hon. Gentleman neglected to say was that the highest level of truancy occurs in education authorities run by the Labour party, and that the only reason we know the truancy figures is because of the performance tables which we introduced and to which the Opposition objected.

Mr. Ashdown: In the light of the Prime Minister's previous answers, will he nevertheless confirm that he has heard of the widespread concerns of parents about their children from governors who have been forced to sack teachers because of education cuts? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that, in the face of cuts in the Government's allocation for education amounting to £50

per primary school pupil and £200 per secondary school pupil, he simply cannot dump the whole blame on to councils? Does he not realise that the country wants him to think again? Will he do so?

The Prime Minister: Of course I understand the concerns of parents that education is properly funded, and that is why I made the point to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) about the increase in resources under the Government in recent years. The right hon. Gentleman cannot deny the Government's achievements in benefiting parents, pupils and teachers by changing the curriculum. Equally, he cannot deny that local authorities could do far more than they have done to seek savings without turning directly to the teacher in the classroom. What the right hon. Gentleman should be saying to people—not least his own education authority—is, "What other savings have you sought before you have gone directly to the teacher in the classroom?"

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Would my right hon. Friend allow any member of his Front-Bench team to visit convicted IRA terrorists in English prisons and to campaign to have them returned to Northern Ireland? Would he consider such action to be tough on crime, and on the causes of crime?

The Prime Minister: The direct answer to my hon. and learned Friend is no, I would not. He makes his case clearly.

Ms Hodge: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 March. [14656]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Ms Hodge: Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that it is the first duty of a free media to report the truth irrespective of Government bullying? [Interruption.] Clearly, Conservative Members do not agree. Is it not time that the Prime Minister and his colleagues took heed of the advice of the Daily Mail and Sir Bernard Ingham and stopped whingeing?

The Prime Minister: I wonder whether the hon. Lady would like to tell us on how many occasions Mr. Alastair Campbell has complained to the BBC in the past few weeks. As to her substantive question, of course I welcome truthful reporting. I always welcome it and I like seeing it.

Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 March. [14657]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Whittingdale: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate Maldon district council, which yesterday received nearly £22 million following the transfer of its housing stock to the Plume housing association? Is he aware that that will enable the council to improve services and to continue to set the lowest council tax in Essex? Does that not demonstrate once again that Conservative councils deliver better services at a lower cost to the council tax payer?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend refers to Maldon, but he could equally well have referred to a very large number of Conservative authorities, which, on balance, provide a council tax that is far lower than that of authorities run by the Labour or Liberal parties. Equally,


I congratulate Maldon on taking advantage of the policies to bring in private finance and to provide better services generally to its council tax payers. I believe that runs right the way across the gamut of local authority services. For those people who talk about the homeless, I note the very large number of empty properties in Labour-controlled authorities in inner London and in the middle of many of our great cities.

Mr. Bayley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 March. [14658]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Bayley: When will the Prime Minister unequivocally back Canada in its stand against unfair and ecologically disastrous Spanish fishing practices?

The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be making a statement immediately after Question Time.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 March. [14659]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Townsend: During my right hon. Friend's recent and successful visit to the middle east, did he have time to talk to Prime Minister Rabin about his country's unwillingness to declare that it is now a nuclear power and to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? Recalling my right hon. Friend's excellent work in getting the United Nations Security Council to approve resolution 687, which called for a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the middle east, how will that be achieved if Israel cannot be persuaded to change its mind?

The Prime Minister: We did discuss that and a range of other matters, and I made it clear in my meetings that we believe that the future of the non-proliferation treaty is extremely important and we hope that everyone possible will ensure that it can be extended indefinitely. The indefinite and unconditional extension of that treaty at the conference in April and May would be in the best interests of everyone, not only in the middle east but in other parts of the world where there is equal difficulty in persuading participants to sign up to the treaty.

Ms Church: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 March. [14660]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Ms Church: Would the Prime Minister like to take this public opportunity to confirm that the position of the chairman of his party is unassailable?

The Prime Minister: I have told my right hon. Friend to take no notice whatever of the current hubbub and that it goes with the job, as do silly questions like that.

Mr. Alexander: As we are marking the 50th anniversary of the end of the second world war this year, will my right hon. Friend look sympathetically at the amendment that was recently passed to the Pensions Bill in another place and restore to war widows the right to a war widows pension, even though they have been widowed or divorced from a second husband?

The Prime Minister: We are considering the amendment that was passed in another place the other day and a second amendment that was also passed there and will make our decisions known when the matter returns to the House.

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 March. [14661]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Prime Minister assure the House that when he and his Ministers decide, in the next few days, about the future of Guy's hospital, they will take account of current circumstances, which are that a building that has just cost £154 million to build, Philip Harris house, is waiting to be used for the benefit of the health service? Will they decide to use that building and not to close an accident and emergency unit in less than four years' time, because the circumstances that justify its continuing existence may be just the same then as they are now?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me advance notice of the question that he proposed to ask this afternoon. As he said, there has been a consultation about the future of services at Guy's and St. Thomas's, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be able to make her decisions known shortly. I know that she will take into account the views of everyone concerned and what the hon. Gentleman said, including his remarks about Philip Harris house.

Fishing Rights (Dispute)

Dr. Gavin Strang: (by private notice) asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the fisheries dispute between the European Union and Canada.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. William Waldegrave): Our policy is to use our unique position as a member both of the European Union and the Commonwealth to help broker a resolution of this dispute. Canada is right to say that much more effective enforcement is necessary in the disputed fishery, but this will be achieved only through negotiation, and not through unilateral action on the high seas. We must also settle fair catch shares. The need for a settlement is urgent. Both sides should show restraint in order to give the talks a chance of success.

Dr. Strang: Does the Minister accept that the fundamental and paramount need is to conserve fish stocks and prevent over-fishing? Will he acknowledge that fish recognise neither national frontiers nor 200-mile fishing limits? Does he also accept that international agreement and international law are the only way to meet conservation objectives?
As the disagreement between the European Union and Canada on turbot quotas is a major factor, will the Minister confirm that the European Union is prepared to continue to talk to Canada to settle that disagreement? Does he accept that equally important is the question of the small-mesh net? If the small-mesh net which Canada has put on display in New York is Spanish, can he tell us whether that net is illegal, and whether the Canadians were justified in taking action?
Given that the European Union is in dispute with Canada, not the UK, may I finally ask three short questions? Is the Minister still in full agreement with the EU position? Is he completely satisfied that it is not legally defective and that the EU account of events is true? In view of the concern expressed last time the Minister of State made a statement to the House on this issue, does he recognise that a substantial number of hon. Members on both sides of the House expressed concern about Spanish fishing practice? Will he report back to the House immediately if the truth is not being fully told and if the EU position is not legally foolproof?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman has not got it quite right, although some elements are nearly right.
The dispute is not now about the amount of fish that should be caught. That was agreed in September, when the new total allowable catch was set at 27,000 tonnes. The Spanish asked fora higher quota, but, as far as I know, the Canadians did not say that it should be lower. They are happy with the agreement. The dispute is not about the amount of fish that should be caught, but about who should catch the fish. Negotiations have broken down on that matter.
The North-west Atlantic Fisheries Organisation—NAFO—agreed a share-out which seemed to be unfair to the EU. Under the procedures, the EU was allowed to set a unilateral quota for this year and to go on arguing. That sort of thing happens in fisheries around the world, and it should be settled at the negotiating table.
The real argument is about enforcement. As I said in my answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), we have a great deal of sympathy for the Canadians. The House and other nations know that there are questions about Spanish obedience to the rules in many fisheries. The way to settle that is by establishing a proper regime, which is properly enforced.
We have no difficulty with some of the views that the Canadians are putting forward about that, but cutting the nets off a big trawler is dangerous and illegal. The Canadians are in danger of ruining a good case by that kind of action. I do not think anyone in the House, let alone anyone who represents a fisheries constituency, would want to encourage that kind of action on the high seas.
The argument is about how to enforce a proper regime. We must get people back to the table, and we must get an agreement. Both sides—I say this advisedly—would do well to cool the political rhetoric and get back to talking. If the hon. Gentleman is serious, as many are in the House, about the conservation of fish and reaching a proper agreement in the north Atlantic, what we need is a proper agreement that is properly enforced. That means reaching a legal agreement first.

Mr. David Harris (St. Ives): My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to put the emphasis on enforcement. In that regard, what role have our inspectors played, in conjunction with the EU? Is it correct that they inspected the Spanish vessel that was initially involved in the dispute and, if so, what was the outcome of that inspection?
While our sympathies are entirely with the Canadians on the question of enforcement and the need for proper protection, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Canadians have wrong-footed themselves by arresting that trawler in the first place and cutting nets? Does my right hon. Friend also agree, however, that the European Commissioner has gone completely over the top in her reaction to the situation? We must now direct all our efforts to getting the parties around the table to start talking, so that the problem is settled in accordance with the rule of law.

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend speaks for common sense and with a real understanding of the situation on behalf of everyone in the House. He is quite right. He knows far more about the details than I do, but I believe—[HON. MEMBERS: "So do we."] There are Opposition Members who know about them, too. I believe that cutting the wires of a big trawler could have capsized the boat or killed someone. In that case, the entire moral advantage that the Canadians have established would have been lost in one go.
I agree with my hon. Friend that some of the language used by the European Commissioner is intemperate and unwise. It would be advisable for her, and perhaps advisable for some of the Canadian spokesmen, to cool their language.
On my hon. Friend's specific point about British fisheries inspectors, the situation has not been quite correctly reported. A British official working for the Commission was sent by it to inspect the Estai when she returned from the north Atlantic fishery. He was not a British fisheries inspector as such. I believe that he made certain reports to the Commissioner, but we have not seen those in detail.
I advise the House to be a little careful about endorsing any such reports until we have seen them in detail. It is quite a long way across the Atlantic.

Mr. James Wallace: The Minister must know that British fishermen have for some time been complaining about Spanish malpractice such as false holds and small-mesh nets. Does he accept that the reason that the Canadians enjoy so much support from the fishing industry is that they have shown a bit more vigour in enforcement than we have witnessed from the European Union? Using those incidents, what steps is he taking in the EU to tighten up the enforcement regime? Does he accept that, if illegal fishing is going on, irrespective of the flag of the vessel that carries it out, the international community should back proper enforcement of fisheries conservation rules?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is right. We should back tougher enforcement of proper rules. However, by definition, as soon as one succumbs to the tempting argument in favour of taking unilateral action and, formally, illegal action, all that work is lost. I believe that, from that dispute, we can obtain a tougher enforcement regime in that fishery, which will be a precedent for tougher enforcement in fisheries nearer home, and that is a prize that we should go for.
If we end up weakening international law as a result of all that, our fishermen will be at least as vulnerable as anyone else. Hon. Members should remember the tuna fishery incident last year when there was illegal cutting of our nets by Spaniards. If we were to start endorsing that type of action, we would not do our fishermen any good.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Bearing in mind the fact that Canada is a country that has never let Britain down when we have been in trouble, is the Minister aware that there is some disappointment and a great deal of anger in Canada and Britain that the Government have been presented as having little sympathy with the Canadians, who are in danger of having their fishing eradicated? Will the Minister make it abundantly clear that we are well aware that Spanish fishermen have illegally destroyed fishing grounds in many other regions, and will he stand 100 per cent. behind Canada in trying to solve what is a real problem, from which we cannot run away?

Mr. Waldegrave: No one in the House needs to be reminded of their sympathy for Canada. Newfoundland was discovered from my constituency. [Interruption.] I have to apologise to the hon. Member—it was. The Canadian fisheries protection vessel that cut the lines was named after a relation of mine. There is plenty of sympathy on both sides of the House with the Canadians.
I have to say to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) that, if he reads the wise words of some of the Canadian fishermen, he will discover that they know very well that they largely destroyed their own cod stocks. They are now serious about conservation. They are right to ask the rest of us to join in being more serious about conservation, but the way to do that is to agree total allowable catches and enforce them, not to do things unilaterally. They have made their argument. We should

continue the negotiations. We should obtain a regime that can be enforced and that will benefit not only those fisheries but other fisheries.

Mr. Peter Shore: In view of the real danger of an armed clash between Canadian and Spanish warships in the north Atlantic, will the Minister make it plain where Britain stands in the dispute about the fisheries between Canada and the European Union? Specifically, will he make it plain that he dissociates himself entirely from the decision made by the European Union to suspend negotiations—a decision that was announced as recently as today? Will he make further urgent representations to the Spanish Government to withdraw their warships from the area?

Mr. Waldegrave: I believe that the discussions continue; they certainly should. We stand for returning two close allies of ours, both members of NATO, to sensible negotiations round the table. They are both big countries. Canada is the seventh biggest economy in the world; Spain is the eighth. That type of dispute should be solved by proper negotiation by serious countries of that type. We stand for telling both to cool the rhetoric. We wish the Spaniards to pull back from the fishing grounds to give the talks a chance and the Canadians not to pursue unilateral action on the high seas.
There is obviously a negotiating position in play between both sides. The type of rhetoric that is being displayed, to some extent in Canada, and in the House from time to time, is not especially helpful in obtaining the type of long-term agreement that will be brokered, I believe, if only people will return to the table.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the key to the issue is enforcement? If he does agree, does he not accept that a useful first step would be to make a comparison between the British Register of Shipping, held by the Marine Safety Agency, and Lloyd's Register of Shipping, which demonstrates a wide use of hidden holds, larger engine sizes and all the rest? It is perfectly clear that the French, the Spanish and some other nationalities in the European Union have been cheating consistently for a long time. We have the opportunity to do something about that. Will he agree to do so?

Mr. Waldegrave: I, too, read the interesting story in The Sunday Telegraph about the comparison between the Lloyd's register engine sizes and the declared engine sizes of the Spanish shipping fleet. There is something to follow through there—it is a useful piece of work.
My hon. Friend is right to say, as I said before, that out of the episode we can obtain a greater worldwide commitment to the enforcement of proper regimes—I believe that our fishermen will gain from that. It will not benefit us to appear to endorse unilateral action on the high seas. What will the House say if the Spanish unilaterally extend out into the tuna waters and say that they have decided to enforce their own regime over tuna on the international high seas and exclude our fishermen? What sort of moral position would the people who are making easy comments today find themselves in then?

Dr. Norman A. Godman: In the eyes of the international community, the Icelandic Government did not lose the moral case when their coastguard vessels chopped the gear away from British trawlers. I know the industry, and I believe that the


Canadians will win the moral case. I know of no Scottish fisherman with sympathy for the Minister's position or, especially, the Spanish position.
Surely, in order to deal with international fisheries disputes, we need an international police force, perhaps under the United Nations blue flag. Will the Minister honour the promise that he made to me about Spanish vessels and ensure that United Kingdom waters are policed as toughly as the Canadians and Norwegians police theirs?

Mr. Waldegrave: I do not think that it would be practical for an international police force to operate under the United Nations, as that would take until Doomsday to organise. We have an opportunity to set up an enforcement operation under the NAFO, with observers on the boats. The Canadians have made that proposal, which we support and which can be negotiated.
The hon. Gentleman knows a great deal about the industry. I do not know what he thinks my position is on the Canadians' moral position. I made it clear earlier that I thought that the Canadians were in danger of ruining their strong moral position by taking action that no fisherman on the high seas would support—the hon. Gentleman's constituents no more than anyone else.

Mr. Gary Streeter: Given that emotions on the issue are running high in my part of the world, and given our long and important traditional links with Canada, can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Canadian high commissioner has expressed his thanks to the United Kingdom for the way in which we have conducted ourselves throughout the matter?

Mr. Waldegrave: It is true—and I am grateful for it—that the Canadian high commissioner today expressed his gratitude to the British Government for the efforts that we have been making towards a negotiated outcome that will stick.
To return to the previous question, the conservation of the stocks on the Grand Banks clearly needs co-ordinated management. No one would argue about that, but how should it be done? I beg the House to remember that we are not talking about the amount of fish caught, which has already been agreed.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In recognising that recent events have focused clearly on the practices of the Spanish fishing fleet, does the Minister also accept the need to look at the accession agreements pertaining to Spain and Portugal? It seems that, if the accession agreements are not changed, we could have a free-for-all in western waters by 1 January 1996. That matter must be addressed seriously.
In that context, what representations is the Minister making to the Commission to ensure that agreement can be reached before the June Council? Is he looking at the text of the framework regulations that will be discussed? It is important that we sort the matter out before the Spanish take over the presidency on 1 July.

Mr. Waldegrave: An April meeting of the Fisheries Council will seek to reach agreement on those matters in a timely fashion. The hon. Lady knows that the accession agreements were fundamentally settled 10 years ago. There will not be a free-for-all, because we negotiated

additional protection—although not as much as I would have liked—in our western waters which will prevent that from occurring.
The fundamental point remains the enforcement of whatever agreements may be made. That is where there is a prize to be won from this dispute: I believe that the lessons to be learned about enforcement will prove very useful to us in providing a precedent which we can apply elsewhere in the world.

Sir Donald Thompson: I remind my right hon. Friend that the Table at which he stands is a gift from Canada. Will he ensure that the multiplicity of agreements, negotiated both bilaterally and through the Economic Community, that exist in every ocean of the world are enforced properly? Will he and his Department always react first in support of those people who are trying to enforce those very difficult agreements?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is not quite correct: the Dispatch Box at which I stand was the gift of New Zealand. [HON. MEMBERS: "He said the Table."] The Table—I am happy to acknowledge the fundamental support from Canada underneath the Dispatch Box.
My hon. Friend is correct, but the Canadians want—and we all need—a legally enforceable agreement to conserve stocks in that fishery and to enforce catch sizes within the allowable limits agreed by the scientists. The Canadians have raised those issues very effectively, but now they are in danger of diminishing respect for the law itself. It is not in their own long-term interests to seek to improve the law unilaterally. We need better laws which are better enforced; we do not want to return to the old days of unilateral action.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: Does the Minister agree that the use of small-mesh nets is bad fishing practice as well as bad ecology? Will he inform the House how else the Canadian Government could throw the world spotlight on that unacceptable Spanish fishing practice if they did not seize those nets and show them to the world? When will the Government support Canada in its ecologically based fight to preserve fishing stocks in the north Atlantic?

Mr. Waldegrave: A proper enforcement regime in the north Atlantic fishery, which enables an observer to bring a ship to the nearest port for inspection if there is a serious allegation such as fishing with illegal nets, is the way forward. That is the kind of suggestion that is on the table for negotiation. As I have said several times today, the Canadians have been effective in bringing the issue into the world spotlight, but they should not blow their achievement by doing things which are not only illegal but dangerous.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend please save himself a great deal of political embarrassment, and save Her Majesty's Government needless political obloquy, by recommending to his right hon. Friends that the Government should withdraw from the common fisheries policy, under which we find ourselves needlessly embroiled in a dispute which has nothing to do with us? We should concentrate on protecting our fishing communities at home, conserving the fish stocks in our own waters and encouraging our good Canadian friends to do the same.

Mr. Waldegrave: It is paradoxical to suggest that a simple solution to international disputes would be to


return to unilateral national competition. The Canadians are not asking for what my hon. Friend is arguing: they require an enforceable international regime in that fishery, which would cover the Poles, Cubans, Russians, Bulgarians and others. That is the way forward, and it will not be achieved by countries attempting to police their own zones without international co-operation.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is it not a fact that these fish wars are likely to continue as long as so many fishermen seem to be short-sighted, blinkered and selfish, and prepared to carry on destroying fish stocks and, ultimately, their own jobs and the industry as well? European Union ships are fishing illegally off the west coast of Africa. Will the Minister also remind Mr. Tobin, the Canadian Minister, that, having destroyed the cod stocks in Newfoundland, it is ridiculous and unacceptable to talk about a seal cull, because to blame seals for the ridiculous behaviour of fishermen really is the last straw?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is ingenious in widening the scope to one of his other great concerns—animal welfare. His fundamental point, however, is right. I do not blame the individual fishermen, but technology has now given such power to the fishermen of the world, and will continue to give even greater power, so that, unless there are proper agreements that are properly policed and a proper share-out, we will see a classic case of what economists call the tragedy of the commons written on a global scale. That is why it must be done by agreement.

Mr. Keith Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the present dispute between Canada and Spain shows clearly the cavalier attitude of the Spanish towards fish stocks, be they in the high seas or elsewhere? Does he further agree that the way forward is not only to ensure enforcement of common fishing policies but to ensure that we have efficient sanctions against those who do not abide by the rules, in the form of a reduction in quota year by year until those transgressors are not allowed to fish at all?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is on the right track: on how first to prove the offences, where offences have been committed, and then to have serious penalties to ensure that the policies are properly enforced. The Spanish have created problems in other fisheries in the world. They are not the only ones who break fisheries rules—let us be honest about that—but they do have a huge modern fleet. They are tough fishermen, and they have broken rules in different places in the past. A Spanish-owned, British-flagged ship was fined a considerable sum just a couple of weeks ago in the British courts.

Points of Order

Several hon. Members: On a point of order.

Madam Speaker: Let me see how many hon. Members want to raise points of order, then I shall know where to go first. All those who were not called at Question Time, is that right?

Mr. Gary Streeter: On a serious point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the Representation of the People Act 1983, and in view of the recent decision by the BBC to broadcast four hours of debate from the Labour party conference on clause IV, just before the district council elections, have you received any notification from the BBC that, to balance the situation, it intends to broadcast four hours of Conservative speeches; or do you intend to launch an inquiry into this very serious issue?

Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Terry Lewis: Last Thursday, Madam Speaker, you curtailed debate on 1'affaire Cantona, under the sub judice rule. Will you look into the sub judice rule, because, since last Thursday and, indeed, before, throughout the case, there were breaches of that rule by the press and the sound media? In fact, over the weekend, journalists have been suggesting what might happen in the Appeal Court on Friday. Surely what is good for the House should be good for the people out there, who I believe have influenced the case more than they should have done.

Madam Speaker: The House has no authority in what the press may report in terms of the sub judice rule. We have our own sub judice rules, which have been imposed on me by the House, and I have to carry out those rules.

Mr. Tony Marlow: You may well know that the gallant British fishing fleet, out of support for the Canadians, who are seeking to conserve fish stocks on behalf of all of us, has decided to fly on its boats the maple leaf. Would it be in order for the House, in support of the British fishermen, to fly the maple leaf from the Victoria Tower?

Madam Speaker: That question should perhaps be referred to the Administration Committee.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have seen reports of yet another national health service scandal as a woman giving birth to premature twins had to travel 84 miles to find intensive care incubators. What exactly are the Secretary of State for Health's responsibilities, and does she intend to explain to the House the daily crises in the NHS?

Madam Speaker: To the best of my knowledge, there has been no indication from the Government that they are prepared to make a statement on these matters. The hon. Lady may, of course, try her luck at catching my eye during Health questions and raise those matters in that way.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have noticed that a number of Conservative Members have been criticising the BBC for the way in which individual


journalists have been asking questions of Ministers on radio and television. I suggest that they are raising what is an issue of concern to many of us, which is that the BBC has clearly noted that parliamentary replies are such in these times that Parliament itself is being denied information in parliamentary answers, and that we, as Members of Parliament, have become increasingly reliant on journalists to ask questions and secure answers in the national media which we cannot get in Parliament.
In light of that fact, and following the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter), who mentioned an inquiry, may I ask you, while recognising that your powers are limited in respect of answers given by Ministers, to consider the whole issue, given that two of my hon. Friends have now made a complaint—

Madam Speaker: Order. The point of order is whether I am willing to consider the answers given by Ministers to parliamentary questions. It is for Back Benchers to continue to probe and question Ministers to get the answers that they require. It is not a matter for me, as Speaker, as I have no control or authority over the answers given by Ministers. It is part of the cut and thrust of the House and the challenge for hon. Members to pursue matters with Ministers if they feel that they are not receiving satisfactory replies.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On that same matter—

Madam Speaker: No. There can be no further point of order on that matter.

Mrs. Helen Liddell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter reported in The Guardian today. I was shocked to learn from a reply from the Financial Secretary that £136 million of taxpayers' money has been used to advertise privatisation share sales. At no point in any of the debates on the various privatisations was it apparent that sums of that magnitude were to be expended. I seek your guidance as to how I can pursue this matter, as there is legitimate public interest in it.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Lady may like to consider asking parliamentary questions, or to pursue the matter through an Adjournment debate, and use the Order Paper in that way.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. How far along is the procedure regarding the early release of documents on which ministerial statements are made? Are

you satisfied that the negotiations are gaining ground? Too often, statements are made before the documents to which the statements refer are released from the Vote Office. I do not expect the statement itself to be released, but it would be helpful if the documents were released a couple of hours before the statement was made.

Madam Speaker: Arrangements have been in hand for some time to provide that the documents—not, as the hon. Gentleman understands, the statements themselves—are available in the Vote Office an hour or an hour and a half before a statement is made. It is usually up to the Minister involved to lay down the time when he will put the documents in the Vote Office, but they are there in advance. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular case in mind, he should let me know about it. I shall take it up, and see if I can improve matters.

Mr. Alan Simpson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received any representations from the Secretary of State for the Environment about making a statement on the report in The Guardian today about the threat to marine life in the Irish sea? The dumping of 25,000 tonnes of toxic waste and chemical weapons, including nerve gas, arsenic bombs and toxic seed coverings, has rightly been described as an "environmental time bomb". Does not the House have a right to a statement about the extent of the threat and the environmental impact?

Madam Speaker: The Government have not informed me that they wish to make a statement today on that matter. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that all hon. Members know of statements ahead of time by means of the annunciators? We all know by 1 o'clock if statements will be made.

Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw your attention to a parliamentary answer that was sneaked out last Wednesday? It said that, for the first time, through Government Departments, the intelligence and security services and the nuclear industry would have direct access to the police national computer. That has enormous implications for civil liberties and for an independent and non-centralised police force. Surely that information should not have been sneaked out in a parliamentary answer in that way.

Madam Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman objects to that, he should take it up with the Ministers concerned. That is not a point of order for me. No breach of our procedures or Standing Orders has occurred. The hon. Gentleman may table parliamentary questions, raise the matter in an Adjournment debate, or use an early-day motion to bring the matter to Ministers' attention.

Insolvency Commission

Mr. Anthony Coombs: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to improve the regulation of insolvency practitioners.
The Bill sets up an insolvency commission. It is supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It has two purposes. First, it aims to ensure that the insolvency system protects not only creditors but jobs, and, where possible, that insolvent companies are able to continue trading. Secondly, it restores confidence in the insolvency practitioners industry and outlaws people who, sadly, are found to be either inefficient or unprofessional.
The first I heard of the problems in some parts of the insolvency industry was from a Mr. Carpenter in my constituency. Although he put his company into voluntary liquidation, he found that, on assets realised of £180,000, the insolvency practitioners charged him no less than £50,000 to wind it up. He is still making a complaint through the machinery of the insolvency practitioner industry. That case has been delayed some three years.
I am not saying that that case is necessarily typical, but such anecdotal evidence shows that, in a minority of cases, the constructive approach that Kenneth Cork wanted for our insolvency legislation in 1986 is not necessarily being followed through. He said:
The purpose of bankruptcy is not to punish the debtor, but on the contrary, to protect him from his creditors".
Administrative receivership was introduced to do that and to save jobs and companies. The reason is that legislation is heavily weighted towards the practitioner and away from the company and people who are made insolvent. For instance, insolvency practitioners have a duty of care not to stakeholders but to the creditors for whom they are asked to bring in a petition. They have a statutory monopoly.
In the main, all but 150 of the 1,961 insolvency practitioners have no obligation to be audited in public, as is the case with most companies. When a company goes into liquidation, directors lose the right to have information on what is happening, and thereby the opportunity to comment on the efficiency or otherwise of insolvency practitioners. A recent survey showed that no fewer than 62 per cent. of company directors did not even know that a petition had been brought to wind up the company until the petition had reached the court.
Under section 27 of the Insolvency Act 1986, the powers of creditor committees are more formal than real. The 1990 Charnley-Davies case said that there is no jurisdiction over insolvency practitioners' negligence. The Bankruptcy Association has told me that, when one is made bankrupt during insolvency, one is in a highly emotional state. One often loses one's home. As a result, one is not in a position to ask insolvency practitioners the questions that one might wish to ask.
In the main, the vast majority of companies involved in the insolvency profession do a sensible and proper job, but the actions of a small minority are unacceptable. In 1993, the Select Committee on Social Security commented in relation to the winding up of the Maxwell company that £50 million was paid in fees to insolvency practitioners. As a result, the Committee called for a review of procedures for monitoring the progress of insolvencies.
Various studies have been made of the failings of the present system. In particular, there is criticism of the practice of banks appointing reporting accountants who subsequently re-emerge as administrators of the company. The dual role means that those accountants' original reports may not have been as objective as they should have been. In other words, people go by the rule but not by the spirit of the code of professional ethics. It is significant that, when the Royal Bank of Scotland decided that nobody would be allowed to act in two capacities, the number of administrations for which it was responsible fell by 60 per cent.
The level of fees, too, is often rightly criticised. In one case, £2.5 million-worth of assets cost £850,000 in fees. Another insolvency practitioner apparently charged £2,500 for six hours' work. In 1992, the Financial Times carried a report about the insolvency service showing that half of all insolvency practitioners failed fairly seriously to meet the statutory requirements. Yet, sadly, that failure has not been met with any great disciplinary action within the industry, which is self-regulating. In the eight years between 1986 and 1994, only five insolvency practitioners were struck off.
In my view, one of the reasons for all that is the inadequacy of the system of self-regulation within the industry. The system is diffuse—there are seven associations responsible for the monitoring and validation of qualifications in the industry—and there is a complicated complaints procedure, which is unwieldy and takes far too long. Although, last year, the joint industry monitoring unit was set up, only the chartered accountants and the Law Society belong to it. The certified accountants refused to join.
The Institute of Insolvency Practitioners has said that the unit has
no power whatsoever for independent action on any problems it may find during inspection".
So everything goes back to the self-regulating individual bodies that have proved too reluctant to take action against inadequate practice in the past. That is plainly unsatisfactory, and it is disappointing that, in their response to the Social Security Select Committee, the Government said:
We do not consider it necessary or appropriate to undertake a wider-ranging review of this particular area".
I do consider it necessary to undertake such a review, which would achieve two aims. First, it would improve and promote good practice within the profession. Secondly—to be fair, this is equally important—a review would diminish the credibility gap that too often affects the proper, hard-working, efficient and skilled practitioners who make up the vast majority of those in the profession today.
I suggest setting up an independent insolvency commission. It would be paid for by the profession, so it would not be a charge on the taxpayer, and it would have lay members and a lay chairman. The commission would take over the handling of complaints and set up an insolvency ombudsman, as was suggested by the Cork and the Justice committees. It would also carry out inspections, take over the powers of the joint industry monitoring unit and ensure that inspections were consistent, and validate qualifications within the profession—although much progress has been made already in that regard.
The commission could also carry out disciplinary action, removing that task from the individual associations that now, where necessary, validate insolvency practitioners. That, I hope, would mean a far more rigorous disciplinary regime than exists at present.
Whatever the fate of my Bill, those proposals should be seriously considered when the Government next review company law—as, indeed, was suggested to me by hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Anthony Coombs, Mr. David Shaw, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mr. Keith Mans, Mr. Peter L. Pike, Mr. Tim Smith, Sir Fergus Montgomery, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. John Maxton and Mr. Peter Butler.

INSOLVENCY COMMISSION

Mr. Anthony Coombs accordingly presented a Bill to improve the regulation of insolvency practitioners: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 April, and to be printed. [Bill 90.]

Orders of the Day — Disability Discrimination Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

New clause 9

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

'.—(1) It is unlawful for a provider of information to discriminate against a disabled person—

(a) in refusing to provide, or deliberately not providing, to the disabled person any information which he provides, or is prepared to provide, to members of the public;
(b) in failing to comply with any duty imposed on him by section 15 in circumstances in which the effect of that failure is to make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for the disabled person to make use of any such information;
(c) in the standard of information which he provides to the disabled person or the manner in which he provides it to him; or
(d) in the terms on which he provides information to the disabled person.
(2) For the purposes of this Part a person is a provider of information if he is concerned with the provision, whether directly or indirectly, to the public or a sector of the public, of information necessary to the purchase, maintenance and use of services.'.—[Mr. Wigley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government amendment No. 77.

No. 33, in clause 15, page 11, line 6, after 'services', insert
'or a provider of information'.

No. 34, in page 11, line 8, after 'service', insert 'or of information'.

No. 35, in page 11, line 39, after 'service', insert 'or of information'.

No. 44, in page 11, line 40, after 'services', insert
`or a provider of information'.

No. 36, in page 11, line 42, after 'service', insert 'or such information'.

No. 37, in page 11, line 43, after 'service', insert 'or the provider'.

No. 38, in page 11, line 48, after 'services', insert
`or a provider of information'.

No. 39, in page 12, line 2, after 'services', insert
'or a provider of information'.

No. 40, in page 12, line 8, after 'services', insert
'or a provider of information'.

No. 41, in page 12, line 11, after 'services', insert
'or a provider of information'.

No. 42, in page 12, line 19, at end insert—
`(cc) information of a prescribed description'.

No. 43, in page 12, line 23, after 'services', insert
`or one provider of information'.

Mr. Wigley: I am glad of the opportunity to move new clause 9 in the early part of today's debate. I hope that we shall make some progress and that the Government will be responsive to the points made. Several aspects of the matters covered by the new clause were problematic in Committee and at earlier stages.
The new clause deals with the avoidance of discrimination in the provision of services, with particular regard to information that a disabled person needs concerning those services. It is absolutely fundamental, to be able to benefit from a service, that a disabled person knows that the service exists and how and where to get it. Without the availability of that information, the disabled person cannot take advantage of services or the provision of goods. Discrimination in services, therefore, may not arise because it is secondary. Clearly, if a service cannot be used, the discrimination has already occurred. To deny disabled people knowledge and information of what is available is the most fundamental discrimination.
The Bill is concerned with discrimination in a number of areas, many of which we discussed yesterday, such as education, shop services, transport, leisure and employment. How can, for example, a deaf person have access to educational information transmitted by the spoken word, such as on the radio or the television, without text to go with it? How can he have access to information by telephone? Many services are now provided over the telephone. How can a blind person or a person with a visual impairment catch a train if he or she cannot read the timetable? How can such people avoid electrocuting themselves with machinery if they cannot read the instructions? How can they apply for a job if they cannot read the advertisements? The purpose of the new clause is to cover such areas and to secure an effective right of access to information for disabled people, especially those with a sensory impairment, such as sight or hearing loss.
The matter clearly concerns the Royal National Institute for the Blind. Indeed, I am obliged to it for much of the background information for this debate and I am especially grateful to Alun Thomas, its parliamentary officer, whom I think a number of my hon. Friends have met. Alun is known to me because he worked for us as a researcher in Parliament before taking his present job. I know that, with his own visual impairment, people could easily have assumed that he was not capable of the sort of detailed reading and background work of a parliamentary researcher.
Given the right lighting, the right-sized print and the computer services available these days, Alun did an excellent job. His ability to do so could have been denied—not only by ourselves but by others who might have been considering employing him—because of discrimination based on a perceived disability. It is an example of people seeing the disability rather than seeing the ability, which is what this Bill is all about.
According to research undertaken by the RNIB, at least 500,000 people in the United Kingdom cannot read ordinary-sized print. In practice, that means a denial of access to information, such as mail, dosage advice on medical items or use-by labels on food, which fully

sighted people take for granted. For many people with visual impairment, access to such information is a problem. Of the 1 million blind and partially sighted people in the UK, almost half live alone and 90 per cent. are over the age of 65. Many visually impaired people are often isolated in their homes, seldom receiving visitors, with a diminishing number of friends and finding it difficult to get out and about on their own. People in those circumstances should not, and often cannot, rely on a friendly neighbour to read their bank statement, council tax bill or other confidential information.
The Bill introduces two new rights that we hope will lead to more freedom of choice for disabled people. The first hurdle for blind and partially sighted people in exercising their rights under the Bill is the difficulty in obtaining information in a usable form. For example, finding a job is made immensely difficult for visually impaired people by lack of information that they can readily access. One person told the RNIB:
I'm looking to change my career at the moment but it's really difficult because the information I need is only in print.
That brings home the fact that access to work is made that much more difficult. Discrimination takes place before the question of applying for a job has even arisen because visually impaired people are unable to obtain information about jobs.
A deaf-blind person reliant on braille as a means of communication told the RNIB that while he had persuaded his local council to provide his council tax bill in braille, any information unrelated to the council getting money, including information about council services, was sent in print. In practice, that meant that the person had to overcome a hurdle before deciding which swimming pool to use or finding out the opening hours of the local library.
Why is the new clause necessary? The success or failure of the Bill will hinge on whether it can help to deal with the instances of direct and indirect discrimination faced by disabled people in their daily lives. For wheelchair users and those with mobility difficulties, discrimination is often most acute in the context of access to buildings and vehicles. For visually impaired people, discrimination is often caused in the first instance by the lack of accessible information.
Will the Bill mean that visually impaired people such as a shareholder in Northern Electric will receive information about that company on tape without having to expose the company's reluctance to do so in the media? Will it mean that a visually impaired person will receive assistance from the local supermarket to identify items on shelves so that he can shop at a time of convenience to him and find the bargains of the week? Will it mean that no one will receive a renewal application form from his council for his blind person's travel pass in print and not in braille?
I have described some of the practical difficulties faced by people who have visual impairments. Research proves the case for new clause 9. Research conducted by the RNIB and published in the document entitled "Seeing it our way" discovered how access to information had changed the lives of visually impaired people. One person said:
I get the Radio Times in braille, which I would be totally lost without. Now I don't need to ask anyone what is happening on `Neighbours'".


That is a day-to-day practical example of something that is meaningful to people in their everyday lives.
Research also revealed how the lack of accessible information hampered the daily lives of blind and partially sighted people. One of them said:
The Council said that if I wanted to be rehoused because of my sight problem I'd have to fill in an application form. But the form is so tiny I can't read it!
Goodness knows, many of us who do not consider ourselves to have a massive visual impairment find difficulty with many of the forms that are put before us. One suspects that the size of the print is used as a deterrent to stop people following things through.
Other research undertaken by the RNIB, published in February in the report entitled "Second class citizen", revealed how difficult it was for visually impaired people to obtain access to information. More than half of councils in London are unable to provide council tax bills in formats other than small print. That most certainly should not be so.
Although there are pockets of good practice such as in the Department of Social Security and its agencies, the performance of Government Departments is very poor. There is a distinct lack of a co-ordinated approach to serving the needs of visually impaired people in many Government Departments.
A report in 1993 launching the RNIB campaign for accessible information entitled "See it right" also revealed many examples of good and bad practice in the provision of information. Examples of good practice included the availability of the Boots pharmaceutical catalogue in braille, the introduction of a bank's braille facility and British Telecom's braille bills. I am told that British Telecom co-operated well after learning of the difficulties of reading invoices, which are now sent out in large-print versions where necessary. Those good examples are to be praised.
There are bad examples, one of which was brought to my attention by the RNIB concerning a gentleman from London. He said:
I recently received my Green Employment card from the Department of Employment, this proves that I am blind for employment purposes. The renewal letter is in print … the Department know that I am a braillist because I have a braille machine on loan from them, which I also get a print renewal for.
In other words, information is given in print form to a person who is known to the Department not to be able to use print. That must have resulted from a breakdown in the provision of services. The Bill should address that breakdown, and new clause 9 attempts to do so.
Another example of bad practice was given by a man from Kent, who said:
Many of the forms I receive are unreadable, for example, an income tax form could not be completed without some assistance. If such forms could be in large print together with the literature that accompany them, much of the difficulty might be overcome.
No one is saying that every form for every person—whether he has a visual handicap or not—needs to be in such formats, but we must ensure that there is a facility that can meet the needs of visually challenged people when necessary, particularly with regard to mail shots, which are now overwhelmingly sent out from a database.

New clause 9 is the most effective way of ensuring that the needs of visually impaired people are identified and properly addressed.
The Government could claim that the new clause is unnecessary since access to information is already referred to elsewhere in the Bill. In a letter to the RNIB, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People confirmed that, under that right, service providers will be required to provide communication aids where reasonable and necessary to enable disabled people to use the service in question. He emphasised that where facilities for the communication and the provision of information are provided as services in themselves, they must also be made accessible where reasonable. Unfortunately, the spirit of that letter is not reflected in the wording of the Bill, although Government amendment No. 77 may help. I shall come to that in a moment.
An unequivocal statement is needed in the Bill to counter the current ignorance of the needs of visually impaired people among information providers. The new clause would make it clear that the provision of information is a service in itself, and would recognise that gaining access to information is a prerequisite to allowing visually impaired people to exercise a meaningful choice about facilities, goods and services. It is not a matter of an auxiliary service—it is a matter of principle.
Another objection may be that the new clause would require all information to be produced in braille, which would impose onerous obligations on service providers. In reality, the new clause would not oblige a company to produce all its internal memos in braille, large print or in parallel. The new clause clearly relates to part III of the Bill, and is subject to the test of reasonableness and the justifications for less favourable treatment for disabled people in clauses 13 and 14.
The attitude that those objections reflect is often based on a number of misconceptions about visual impairment. Braille is a vital means of communication, but only for its 19,000 readers out of a total visually impaired population of 1 million people. The majority of visually impaired people can read print that is distinct and fairly large. Adhering to good practice in print standards would help a service provider to communicate its message much more effectively to fully sighted people. New technology has made it simpler and more cost-effective to produce braille in-house, and there are also a growing number of external transcribers. It is wrong to overstate the difficulties in providing braille for the relatively small number of people who need it.
Another objection may be that the new clause proposes the provision of information directly or indirectly, which will mean that manufacturers that are not service providers will come under the terms of the Bill. In reality, the purpose of the inclusion of indirect providers is to acknowledge that some companies are better placed to supply acceptable information about their products, even though they are not regarded as service providers as they make their products available through a retailer.
British Telecom, for example, will be considered a service provider under the terms of the Bill, since it sells telephones directly to the public, and will be expected to provide braille instructions for its answerphones, if requested to do so by a visually impaired customer. As the Bill stands, however, Creda would not be obliged to provide taped information about its cookers on request since its products are available only through high street


retailers. We would thus have the bizarre situation that has been suggested to the RNIB—responsibility for explaining how a cooker worked would fall on Mr. Jones, the high street shopkeeper, since he would be the service provider. Clearly, such anomalies must be sorted out.
4.30 pm
The rights established under the Bill must be clear for disabled person and service provider alike. As the Bill stands, the service provider is likely to be completely unaware of his or her new responsibilities to visually impaired customers. For blind and partially sighted people, the reference to information is so nebulous that there is no guarantee that they would succeed in progressing cases under the Bill. The problem of enforceability is exacerbated by the fact that the Government believe that most cases will be settled out of court under this part of the Bill.
The new clause does not state that all information must at all times and in all places be produced in parallel in print, braille and spoken tapes. That would not be feasible, Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Laughter.] I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. How could I make such a mistake? It would not be feasible to provide all information in all modes in every circumstance, but we need to ensure that the various modes are available as appropriate.
Under the terms of the new clause, refusing to provide information if requested to do so would be illegal. In other words, thought must be given to how vital information, which is needed to avoid discrimination, can be at hand in an understandable form for those who need it. The new clause should lead people to think in advance how information can be made available for blind, visually handicapped or deaf people.
The first part of Government amendment No. 77, which is linked with my new clause, refers to
access to and use of means of communication",
which is certainly a step in the right direction; it would help deaf and deaf and blind people in particular. The second part of it, however, refers to
access to and use of information services",
which is far too restrictive. We are concerned about information on services, not merely information services. We need to ensure that we do not include only the services that consist exclusively of provision of information, which is what the second half of the amendment seems to suggest. We should be concerned about information on goods and services generally.
I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify the intention behind the second half of the amendment. Perhaps the Government are trying to do what we want to achieve under the new clause, but the wording does not achieve that. What about circumstances in which the provision of information is peripheral to the main service being provided—for example, information on a credit card statement? Does Government amendment No. 77 provide that that information should be in a usable form for those who are visually impaired, as the main service is the provision of credit and not of credit card statements? The information on a railway timetable is another example—British Rail runs a rail service, not an information service.
Those examples must be clarified. Clearly, that area needs to be tightened considerably if the Bill is to deliver the support that is needed by many hundreds of thousands

of disabled people, especially those who are visually challenged, and if they are to avoid continuing discrimination against them in the provision of goods and services. The Government clearly understand the need to strengthen the Bill because they tabled an amendment, but it does not go far enough, which is why I tabled new clause 9.

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. William Hague): I have a great deal of sympathy with many of the points made by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), although if I had to explain what had happened in the last episode of "Neighbours" I, too, would have to ask someone.
I understand fully why the hon. Gentleman has moved new clause 9 and the associated amendments. I agree that it is essential that disabled people, particularly those with visual or hearing impairments, have access to information about facilities and services.
In constructing the right of access to goods and services in the Bill, our aim was to develop a statutory right of non-discrimination that is universal, all-embracing and applies to all providers of goods, facilities and services to the public.
The basic structure of that right is set out in clause 12, which provides that it is unlawful for a service provider to discriminate against a disabled person by not providing goods, facilities and services that he provides for members of the public. I am happy to make it clear now, as I did in Committee, that the provision of information is one such service and is definitely covered by the Bill.
Clause 15 sets out the duty on service providers to make adjustments to practices, policies and procedures to enable disabled people to access the service being provided. Subsection (5) already makes it clear that that includes providing information in accessible formats, such as on tape or via an interpreter, where that would be an auxiliary aid or service enabling a disabled person to make use of the service. The Bill thus covers the provision of information services either as a service in itself or as an adjunct to other services.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon mentioned several examples of what he meant. May I give a few examples? Timetables that help people to use the service of a transport network; leaflets that help people use the service of welfare benefits; menus that help people with restaurants; recorded information about theatres; statements about banking; directional signs about car parking; verbally communicated information in a butcher's shop; guide books in art galleries; and subtitles or voice-overs in broadcasting are all intended to fall within the scope of the Bill. I agree, however, that we may need to make that clearer and, as the hon. Gentleman noted, to achieve that we propose Government amendment No.77.
The hon. Gentleman touched on the distinction between those examples and placing a duty on retailers or manufacturers to produce operating instructions in accessible formats. We are entering an extremely difficult area. If, for instance, we were to place a burden on manufacturers it would, first, be difficult to tie down what was meant by "instructions". For example, would the operating instructions for a CD player include the labels and knobs on the machine itself? If so, the implications for designing and bringing new products to market could be enormous.
Secondly, foreign-made products would present difficulties. Foreign manufacturers would be outside the scope of the Bill, so those which make many products for which operating instructions are most required, particularly electrical equipment, would not have to comply with a requirement to change their format.
Thirdly, the liability on retailers would also be extremely onerous. I am not sure that we could expect supermarkets to provide information in alternative formats on all the goods that they sell.
Those are difficult areas which even those responsible for drafting the Americans with Disabilities Act did not attempt to solve. The ADA makes no provision for accessible instructions. I am clear, however, that the Bill should cover information services, information about a service and access to and use of means of communication.
We debated the issue at some length in Committee and I have received a number of representations, to which the hon. Member for Caernarfon referred, about including a specific reference to the provision of information in accessible formats in the Bill. I am happy that the Bill, as drafted, already makes provision for that, but I am prepared to take on board the concerns of disabled people with physical and sensory impairments, who will be most affected by the provision.
That is why I tabled Government amendment No.77, which makes it absolutely clear that
access to and use of means of communication
and
access to and use of information services
are included in the right of access. That requirement adds to the requirement to provide information about a service, which is already contained in the Bill. I therefore believe that the amendment clarifies the position beyond doubt in a practical and sensible way, and does so within the framework of the Bill.

Mr. Wigley: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying how far the Government are prepared to go, but I want to ensure that we understand him properly. The Minister has said that it will be a statutory requirement to provide information services and information about services when the Bill becomes law, but that information about goods will not be subject to a similar requirement. How will a visually challenged person, who may use some electrical equipment purchased from a shop, avoid being electrocuted if the necessary information about how that piece of equipment should be used is not provided? That visually challenged person may be capable of using such machinery or equipment if he or she is provided with the relevant information. If it is not possible to provide a parallel braille or enlarged instruction set, surely some provision should be made for a fallback so that those individuals can get that information. That responsibility must lie, if not with Mr. Jones, the shopkeeper, with someone else. If we do not tackle that problem, the Bill will have a big hole in it.

Mr. Hague: I certainly understand that problem. It would be good practice for manufacturers and retailers to ensure that information was available. One may place a legal duty on manufacturers and retailers to make information available in every case about operating

instructions and directions for use. It would be difficult, however, to differentiate between different types of goods. The problem with that legal duty is that it is extremely difficult for manufacturers to define that information and, as I have already said, many manufacturers are outside the United Kingdom and would not be subject to the law in any case. The United States Congress was unable to solve that problem when it framed the Americans with Disabilities Act. I cannot find a satisfactory way of solving it in the Bill.
I hope that the hon. Member for Caernarfon will at least be able to welcome the clarification that I have given about the purpose of the Bill. I believe that it will cover the provision of information and the means of communication. Government amendment No. 77 provides additional clarification by making it clear that information should be provided in an accessible format, whether that information is a service in itself or information about a service. That will be incorporated within the framework of the Bill if we use Government amendment No. 77 for that purpose. I hope that it will command—

Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hague: I will give way, although I am on my final sentence.

Mr. Barnes: I thought that I should get in before that last sentence.
To what extent are a specific category of disabled people—those with learning difficulties—covered by the Bill? Certain organisations, such as People First, make considerable efforts to spread information. People First has produced a version of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill in a good, readily available form. Although the terms of the new clause and the amendments are general, they may apply to the visually impaired in particular and I believe that they should also refer to those with learning difficulties. Would the Minister's analysis apply to those people?

Mr. Hague: Most of the debate has focused on people with physical or sensory impairments, but the duty would be to provide auxiliary aids and other formats where it is reasonable to do so. It does not exclude providing information on the lines suggested by the hon. Gentleman, but a judgment must be made about where it is reasonable to do that.
I hope that I have clarified the Government's position. We will improve the Bill if Government amendment No. 77 is accepted and I hope that it will command the support of the House.

Mr. Robin Corbett: We welcome Government amendment No. 77, although we regret that the Minister resisted a similar amendment when we tried to move one in Committee. Nevertheless, that amendment has now been tabled.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) made the case exactly. The debate is another example of taking a minimalist approach. Let me give the Minister one or two examples.
When one buys any electrical goods, it is rare for them not to include a guarantee, shaped like a concertina, that is translated into four or even six languages, not all of


them European. Many of those products are made in Japan or the far east, and those guarantees are obviously designed for the markets in which the products are sold. If such information can be provided, why cannot the Minister at least open discussions with some of the main importers of those goods to try to encourage them to make information available, on request, to people with disabilities who need it to overcome the safety problem raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon?
Manufacturers had better wake up to the fact that, as in the provision of services, unless they provide such information, they will increasingly be at commercial disadvantage. There is something in it for them as well.

Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman has put it the right way, because there is certainly scope for future discussions about that. There is a great commercial incentive for manufacturers and retailers to think about supplying operating instructions. That is beyond the Bill, but I, as Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, and the National Disability Council would want to pursue it. It is another step to say that we should incorporate in legislation an attempt to regulate manufacturers that may be based in Japan, Germany or the United States.

Mr. Corbett: I understand that, but I am glad that the Minister has taken my point, and that his Department or the National Disability Council, or both, will pursue it. I understand his reluctance to lay duties upon British manufacturers which it is not possible to lay upon foreign manufacturers, but there is nothing to stop him opening discussions with major British manufacturers.
We are talking about providing information when it is requested, be it in braille, tape form, large print or text, as People First has done in its excellent presentation of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, the better Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes).
Birmingham city council is not alone among local authorities in translating its main documents—not just those about the council tax and extracting money from citizens—and issuing either a summary or a complete translation of them in the main languages used by the ethnic groups which make up a quarter of the population of the city of Birmingham. I might add that the council is extremely good at making such documents accessible to people with disabilities.
I believe that it is a small step from people accepting the sense of respecting the different languages used throughout a community, particularly those in big cities, to making sure that such documents are available to everyone. It re-emphasises the argument that has run through our debates, because, unless the Bill starts the process of ensuring that every person with disabilities becomes, in time, a person with equal rights and equal status in our society, it will not succeed.
I ask for a number of small things to be done, and I hope that the Minister will try to do something about them between now and when the Bill is considered in another place.

Sir John Hannam: I support the new clause and amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). I also welcome Government amendment No. 77, which provides for
access to and use of means of communication
and information services.
Access to information for blind and partially sighted and deaf people and those with learning difficulties is crucial. Misconceptions about the difficulty of providing access must not deter providers of services from giving basic information to disabled people.
It is an all too common assumption that doing so can be expensive, but it does not mean providing everything in braille, as the hon. Member for Caernafon said. The offer to read something out on the telephone or to use better print standards is often enough. The cost of audio tapes is pretty minimal these days. For deaf people, visual information indicators, which we are used to seeing on railway stations, would be helpful in hospitals and other public service waiting areas.
Advances in technology have opened new doors for handicapped people seeking information, so it is important that providers of information are aware of all the possibilities open to them in passing information to their customers. I believe that the Government have recognised that with their amendment, and it considerably strengthens the Bill.

Mr. Wigley: I am grateful for the support that has been given from the Opposition Front Bench and by the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) to the new clause that I have tabled.
I listened carefully to the Minister's comments. There is no doubt that he has moved from the original position he adopted, as we interpreted things, on Second Reading and in Committee, but I am unhappy that there remains an aspect that he has not tackled rigorously enough. I am not sure whether he is satisfied, if he is honest with himself, with regard to the issue of information in circumstances where goods are provided.
I noted what the Minister said about overseas manufacturers not being required to provide such information. However, if overseas manufacturers sell goods for sale in the United Kingdom, they must abide by the consumer laws and the other laws that exist in the UK. In the structures of the European Community, there is already a move to obtain standardisation of the provision of information for disabled people.
I was informed by an old friend of ours, a former researcher of the all-party disablement group, Diana Sutton, who is working out there now, that there is a move among Members of the European Parliament to achieve standardisation in that respect. I do not think, therefore, that the Minister's argument is entirely valid.
Sense—the National Deaf-Blind and Rubella Association—drew to my attention an example of a young deaf-blind man who recently bought a £900 washing machine from a leading high street store. I ask the Minister to bear that example very much in mind, because it goes to the heart of the problem. That young man was informed that, first, if he wanted the manufacturer's instructions in braille, it would cost him additional money and, secondly, it would be about seven months before he would receive those instructions. That is obviously unacceptable. From what the Minister has said, nothing in the Bill will avoid that happening in future.
The Minister cannot be happy about that. I suggest to him that there is room for the Government to reconsider that aspect. There may well need to be an amendment at


a later stage that enables a scheme to be introduced to cover circumstances so that disabled people may obtain information in a format that they can use.

Mr. Alfred Morris: In looking again at this matter, would my hon. Friend agree that the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) about People First is also one that we should all take very carefully into account? Would it not be a good idea for there to be consultation between the Minister and his Department and People First?

Mr. Wigley: Yes. I had intended to refer to the comments by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), and I think that that is a helpful and constructive suggestion. I do not think that the Minister's mind is totally closed on that matter. I think that, if the Minister were able to find a way of doing that in practical terms, he would like to do it, because he would not like to think that a Bill that outlaws discrimination could lead to examples such as that of the deaf-blind person trying to buy a washing machine and being left in the circumstances in which he was left.
Obviously there is a weakness. We have not yet discovered, according to what the Minister says, a practical means and a form of legislation to overcome the problem. I believe that a system of schemes for sectors—especially electrical and electronic gadgetry and so on—might be devised, provided that there is a handlebar in the legislation to allow orders or whatever to develop that in industries and in terms that the trade would accept. Obviously, the Minister would need to discuss the matter with manufacturers' associations and retailers before he could go all the way on that.
I ask the Minister, as the Bill moves on to another place, as he has come as far as he has with regard to the provision of information services and information about services, whether the third leg of the stool—information about goods—might be reconsidered at that later stage to discover whether there is any way in which we can close that gap. I think that the Minister is sympathetic towards it. May I entice him to respond to say that he is prepared at least to consider that in the later stages?

Mr. Hague: It would be wrong of me to raise the hopes of the hon. Gentleman that we could include provision about operating instructions in the Bill. There are fundamental problems of the type that I have described—fundamental problems that have defeated the drafters of legislation in other countries, including the drafters of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as I said.
I certainly, however, believe that there is scope for the Government and the National Disability Council to work with manufacturers and retailers after the Bill is on the statute book, or even before, to ensure that it becomes increasingly common, and that it becomes accepted good practice, to tackle the aspect about which the hon. Gentleman is worried.
I think that we are now providing for information in the vast majority of circumstances to be covered by the Bill. We have made that absolutely clear. I think that that is as far as we can realistically go in legislation at the moment.

Mr. Wigley: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention. It clarifies where the Government stand, and I

perceive that the Government would like, in the discussions that they hope to have at a later stage with those representative organisations, to close what they accept is a perceived gap and a weakness in the present provision.
I therefore suggest, in bringing the short debate to a close, that the Government actively consider introducing in the Lords a facility to make an order, if a Minister deems it practical and appropriate in the fulness of time after those discussions have taken place, whereby one might underpin a system by legislative strength to avoid discrimination in that area. Without doing so, we shall have a loophole allowing discrimination to continue, so that good companies may have acceptable practices but many companies may not. People will encounter difficulties of the type that I have outlined.
We have made progress on those issues. On the basis that the Government continue to consider the matter actively, and in my hope that they will persuade themselves to give a facility by way of order by amendment in another place, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 11

ACCESSIBILITY TO PUBLIC TRANSPORT

'(1) The Secretary of State shall amend the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 and such other regulations governing other forms of public transport to provide for prescribed standards of accessibility for disabled people in all new public transport systems.

(2) Regulations may prescribe different standards for different classes of vehicle and may prescribe dates for different clsses of vehicle by which the standards must be met.

(3) In preparing or revising the standards referred to in this section the Secretary of State shall consult the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee established under section 125 of the Transport Act 1985.'.—[Sir John Hannam.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir John Hannam: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 13—Door-to-door transport—
'The Secretary of State may issue regulations requiring Local Authorities to make provision for door-to-door transport services for disabled people unable or not reasonably able to use other forms of public transport.'.

New clause 18—Design of means of public transport (No. 2)—
'.—(1) The Secretary of State shall, by regulations, set standards of accessibility for disabled persons for means of public transport designed to be brought into use after the dates set in those regulations.

(2) Means of public transport include, but are not limited to—

(a) buses and coaches,
(b) taxis,
(c) trains, including light-rail,
(d) trams, trolley-buses and underground trains, and
(e) ships.

(3) Regulations under subsection (1) may set different degrees of accessibility for different means of public transport and different degrees of accessibility to be achieved by different dates.
(4) In this section, "public transport" means any means of transport provided in return for payment, or, where no payment is required, on request.'.

Amendment No. 2, in clause 12, page 9, line 4, at end insert—
`(aa) any service so far as it consists of the use of any means of transport, subject to the provisions of section (Design of means of public transport);.'.

Amendment No. 3, in page 9, leave out lines 26 and 27.

Amendment No. 24, in schedule 6, page 36, line 40, at end insert—
'8A. In section (Design of means of public transport) for "Secretary of State" substitute "Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland)".'.

Sir John Hannam: I wish to speak in support of the inclusion of transport in the Bill, and specifically to new clauses 11 and 13, in my name and those of hon. Friends and colleagues.
Having fought hard to persuade the Government to adopt anti-discrimination legislation last year, I was extremely disappointed about the exclusion of transport vehicles from its provisions, because I believe that it is no use talking about making it possible for disabled people to obtain employment or to have access to places of entertainment or education if they are not able physically to get there.
As a member of the Government's Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, I was anxious to find a way of amending the Bill to ensure that transport is included and that regulations are updated to provide standards of accessibility for disabled people in all new public transport systems.
The extent of a disabled person's mobility will affect his independence, employment and integrated life. Lack of access to transport means a continual restriction in someone's ability to go outside his front door independently. The more severe the disability, the greater the restrictions. Buses and coaches are, in general, inaccessible to wheelchair users, and those with walking or mobility difficulties often find it difficult to wait around for long periods for transport to become available.
Recently, on television, a camera crew followed two young men in wheelchairs who came from the midlands and who decided to apply for job interviews in London. What, for any of us, would have been an hour and a half or a couple of hours on a train, with a transfer to a tube and a taxi, turned out for them to be a nightmare six-hour series of frustrations as they tried to find station staff with ramps, local trains or buses that were accessible to them and taxis that were suitable for wheelchairs.
5 pm
Certain inter-city trains now have only one designated space available, which means that two wheelchair users cannot travel together on the same train. Recent reports in the press show that Eurotunnel has accepted that it is wrong, and has agreed td provide extra space. That is a worthwhile move, and I am pleased to hear about it, but, generally, train travellers have to book 24 hours in advance of travelling in the hope that arrangements can be made for them. As we all know from our constituency cases, those arrangements often fall down on the day. All those problems increase the sense of isolation and separation from the rest of us felt by disabled people.
A further problem is the lack of accessible toilets, which are available only on certain trains and stations. Disabled people have to become experts in bladder control. As the Bill is currently drafted, if discrimination

occurs on a transport vehicle, that will not be covered by the right to non-discrimination. But if the same offence occurs at a station, it will be. Surely the act of discrimination should be covered, not just the location.
Everyone welcomes the Department of Transport's review of taxis, but taxis cannot be considered as a substitute for generally accessible public transport. It is time that we made public transport—certainly all new forms of public transport—accessible to all the public. A low-floor bus, with easily operated ramp access and no steps inside the vehicle, allows all passengers to get on and off much faster. By "all passengers", I mean not just disabled people, but elderly people and mothers with children. More than 3,000 low-floor, accessible buses are in service in Belgium, Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands. Greece has plans for 1,600 such buses to be put into service.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Does my hon. Friend agree that, quite apart from the obvious rightness of introducing as rapidly as possible accessible vehicles and public transport systems, such adaptations have important advantages for the whole of society and the economy? Traffic moves more quickly because of improved accessibility, not only for disabled people but for others, and the environment benefits, because there is less pollution as a result.

Sir John Hannam: That is absolutely right. My hon. Friend consistently points out the cost benefits of such actions, and he has just given us another example.
We have some small pockets of provision in this country, but they are not widespread. The Government have announced that all new buses will be of low-floor construction, but that is no reason to exclude transport vehicles from the right of access to goods, facilities and services. The 1986 survey of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys showed that 1.1 million people did not use buses because of their disabilities. Our new clauses do not seek to achieve the impossible but, if accepted, would put us on the right path. More importantly, they would give reassurance to disabled people who are worried about the gap in the legislation.
New clause 13 is a probing measure related to local authority schemes. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People will be able to give reassurance on that.
I have tabled the new clause in the hope that the Government will see that transport should be included in the anti-discrimination legislation.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I am sure that we all welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) has introduced an important subject. I find it difficult to understand why the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People is not rushing to accept the practical measures contained in the new clause. Perhaps the Minister has even more rabbits to pull out of the hat—his demeanour does not seem to suggest that today.
The new clause is interesting and helpful, as one would expect from the hon. Member for Exeter, given his contribution to the all-party disablement group. The new clause invites the House to consider the subject of transport. Many people have said to me that, in some ways, the subject is the forgotten, yet essential and pivotal issue, in relation to disability.
I shall concentrate my remarks on new clause 18, but I do not intend that to reflect on the excellent contribution of the hon. Member for Exeter or the advice from many sources that the Government have received, including the famous red book. If my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) has a chance to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sure that he will use that book and add yet more glowing information to our consideration of the issues.
Once again, we are considering a gateway of opportunity for disabled people to play their full part in society. Once again, the Government have intentionally and specifically obstructed that gateway by excluding transport vehicles from the Bill. For many disabled people, mobility issues are the most important aspects in their everyday lives. Their first request of Parliament is to provide the means to tackle those problems to achieve their mobility. That is a perfectly reasonable request, and I have heard no arguments against it. Even in Committee, the Government did not advance an argument against it, but merely said that if we waited long enough, the aim might be achieved. The Bill avoids those important matters.
I commend to the House the publication by Scope last year of a document entitled, "Disabled in Britain: A World Apart". I would find it difficult to believe that anyone reading that document would say that the hon. Member for Exeter was asking for too much. He is not a parliamentary Oliver Twist; he is ahead of the Government, but not ahead of our times. Some might even say that the hon. Gentleman asks for too little. If the new clauses are passed, we shall have made some progress.
The interesting document "Disabled in Britain: A World Apart" contains many insights into the ordinary lives of people struggling to overcome extraordinary difficulties. One comment is particularly revealing about what disability brings in its wake. The document states:
One day you might lose your passport to everyday society. You will have no visa to travel in certain places.
Those are restrictions that millions of our fellow citizens experience day after day as part of their ordinary daily lives. They include restricting the right of disabled people to come to today's debate or participate in other, more interesting and compelling activities.
There is no reason why, given the opportunity and parliamentary time, if not in this Bill—although I find it extraordinary that the Government are not grasping at the opportunity—in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), we should not reach conclusions on one of the most serious problems that disabled people tell us they face.
I think that the descriptions in the document issued by Scope present an incredible image. We see that people in this country are trapped because of their disability and are unable to play a full part in the everyday life of our society. I have spoken to many disabled fellow citizens who have confirmed that image.
Last night, I mentioned my recent experiences in Leicester and Birmingham, and I am pretty sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House could give similar examples from elsewhere. Disabled people are barred

from entering British life not by border controls but by the fact that the means of mobility do not exist. They are trapped behind their own front doors.
One might think that the Government would jump at the chance to improve access for our fellow citizens who are trapped in that way, and would view it as a challenge to which they could respond in a practical manner. I hope that the Minister is thinking along those lines today. The hon. Member for Exeter, the House and I wait patiently to hear whether the Minister will respond positively, if at all, to those transport questions.
That is one of the disabilities that the Bill should seek to tackle—not the physical disability of lack of mobility, but the social disability and immobility that comes from inadequate transport provision for disabled people which has been identified clearly in the speeches in this and in earlier debates and in all the responses to the Government's document, including those in the famous red book.
It is up to the House—if hon. Members have the will—to provide a visa to enable disabled people to travel in British society and to give them a passport to areas of life from which they would otherwise be excluded by disability. Many people—not just hon. Members who are in the Chamber or those members of the public who are observing the proceedings from the Gallery—must be asking why the Government do not appear to have the will to do that. We must remove the exemption of transport vehicles from the terms of the Bill.
It has been said many times in debate on the legislation—but it is worth saying again for the benefit of any hon. Members who may have missed the point—that one of the most ludicrous aspects of the Bill is that it obliges railway and bus operators to make reasonable adjustments in order to achieve equal access for disabled people to train and bus stations, but it avoids imposing any such duty in the cases of individual buses and trains.
Under the legislation, disabled people gain the right to access the station, but not the right to catch a train. That situation is patently absurd and unacceptable. We pleaded with the Government time after time in Committee to respond to that problem and to offer us some hope of a practical approach which has been missing from our deliberations so far.
For many people—disabled or otherwise—the car is the best answer to mobility needs. However, for disabled people, the cost of buying, adapting and running a private car often exceeds the support provided by mobility allowances—and, as we know, even they are under attack. Two in three households in Britain have access to a car. However, for disabled people, the equivalent figure is only two in five. Therefore, we must address the specific mobility problems that disabled people face.
Taxis and private hire cars can be the next best thing to having access to a household vehicle. Encouraging progress has been made towards the target involving wheelchair access to taxis in London. I said in Committee, and it is fair that I should repeat it now, that, despite the views of the Cabinet and the right-wing approach adopted by the Secretary of State for Employment, the practical measures that we propose are confirmed by history.
5.15 pm
As a junior Transport Minister—before the dogmatists got hold of him—the Employment Secretary introduced


into London transport a measure whose aim was to adapt all taxis for people with disabilities by 2000. In 1995, he has achieved nearly 50 per cent. of that objective. The Secretary of State for Employment—a former junior Transport Minister—should be proud of that achievement. I am surprised that he is not in the Chamber listening to the debate and encouraging the Minister—whom many consider to be up and coming, as the Secretary of State for Employment once was—to do something practical and achievable in the transport field, not in order to advance his career but in order to be helpful.
We want to extend that London objective to Edinburgh, Belfast and other cities. We want all taxis to be wheelchair accessible by the end of the century or before. That is a welcome, perfectly reasonable and helpful objective, which could be achieved. I welcome the assurances given in Committee by the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People that steps will be taken to improve wheelchair access to taxis throughout the country. I am rather disappointed that he has not brought forward the promised new clauses in that regard at this stage. I look forward to seeing in the next few minutes whether there is a hat under the Front Bench with many rabbits in it.
I take the opportunity to encourage Ministers to have regard to the different taxi transport requirements of people with varying mobility problems. Despite some excellent progress, the London hackney cab is not invariably the best vehicle for disabled people to use. I welcome Ministers' assurances that there will not be a blanket requirement for a single type of vehicle throughout the country. Ministerial indications that the necessary work will be done on vehicle design are helpful to disabled people and to taxi operators alike.
I do not wish to diminish the significance of what the Government have said. The important thing is that action has been promised and that the principle of making taxis accessible to disabled people has been established. That sends out a very clear signal that, once the principle has been agreed, it cannot be reversed and should be applied elsewhere. But it brings us sharply to the question: if that principle can be made to work for taxis, surely it can be established for other vehicles as well.
Let us not refuse our disabled fellow citizens a permit to travel. Let us instead extend permission to enter society through the gateway of public transport. Let us establish the principle of freedom of movement, and let us plan how disabled access to the means of travel can be achieved. As a means of so doing, I commend new clause 18 to the House.

Mr. Hague: I know that a number of hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, but as the new clauses have been introduced I think that it would be unfair to allow hon. Members to speak in ignorance of the Government's response.
At all stages in the preparation and progress of the Disability Discrimination Bill, we have made clear our commitment to achieving fully accessible transport. We have also made it clear that we believe that progress towards accessible public transport is best achieved by technical legislation or by regulations, codes of practice and so on—in other words, by targeted action rather than by blanket legislation. In the past few weeks I have listened carefully to the arguments advanced by organisations such as the Royal Association for Disability

and Rehabilitation and the Royal National Institute for the Blind as well as those put to me on many occasions by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) and the points that were raised in Committee. I have been considering, with my colleagues at the Department of Transport, how best we can meet the requirements for soundly based technical standards within the framework of the Bill.
The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter take a similar approach. New clauses 18 and 11 propose a requirement through regulations for the introduction of access standards for new public transport vehicles and systems. New clause 18 would require regulations to be introduced setting minimum access standards. New clause 11 seeks a similar result by amending existing regulations. Both new clauses are flexible in that they allow different time scales and access solutions for different modes of transport. That flexibility recognises the Government's concerns that the operation of the various modes of transport will require different access solutions to ensure that the approach adopted provides, as far as practicable, effective and sustainable transport for all passengers, including those with disabilities.
We would have no difficulty, as new clause 11 suggests, with charging the Secretary of State with a specific duty of consulting the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee on the detail of regulations. As it is the statutory adviser to the Department of Transport, the Secretary of State would as a matter of course consult on an issue of such major importance for disabled people, as indeed he does regularly on a wide range of issues.
On the specific examples of the transport modes that would be covered by new clause 18, for the most part we have no difficulty with them. On shipping, however, and equally on aviation, although the latter is not cited in the new clause but could be interpreted as being covered by it, we do not consider that it is right to introduce domestic regulations. In both cases, the international dimension of those transport operations would mean that domestic legislation would be of limited value, not least to disabled people, who would not have the assurance of access throughout the journey. In addition, United Kingdom operators would be commercially disadvantaged if they were subject to additional regulatory control in advance of similar measures in other countries.
On aviation, international guidelines on the accessibility of aircraft to disabled people are already well advanced.
On shipping, a new group has been set up under the International Maritime Organisation to draw up guidelines for the design of new vessels. We believe that those forums represent the best approach to tackling the access issue for aviation and shipping, and we would not therefore favour including those transport modes in the Bill.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Many Scots living on our numerous islands have no access to public transport other than the Caledonian MacBrayne ferries. The Minister's refusal to deal with passenger ferry services will cause them great


dismay. I ask the Minister, where mainland-to-island and island-to-island passenger ferry services are concerned, please think again.

Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman raises a point to which the disadvantage of international travel, to which I have referred, does not apply. I will bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Transport. I would merely say for the moment that the IMO discussions that I have mentioned, if they are brought to fruition, would apply to our domestic ferries as well as to ferries for international travel.
We have no general difficulty of principle with the other transport modes listed, although in some cases the practical constraints on improving access to existing systems are considerable.
In relation to taxis, to which the hon. Member for Monklands, West referred, as we announced in Committee, we intend to table more detailed amendments. I had hoped to do so on Report, but the preparation has taken longer, so we shall do so in another place.
On other modes of transport, as the House will have realised by now, the Government certainly support the spirit of the new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter and by the hon. Member for Monklands, West. There are, however, technical and legal difficulties with the clauses as drafted. We would, for example, have to be clear in our definition of public transport. The new clauses as drafted are not precise enough in that area. The issue is not tackled in either of the new clauses. Indeed, we would wish to go wider than new clause 11 envisages by specifically including rail as well as road-based vehicles.
Neither do the new clauses recognise to any significant extent the existing legislative framework for each mode of transport. The House will be aware that transport operates against a complex web of legislation—domestic and, in some cases, European—and regulations. In considering amendments in that area, we would need to ensure that any new transport clauses in the Bill did not cut across existing provisions.
Amendments have also been tabled to remove the general exclusion of transport vehicles and to add them to the specific list of services to which the general right of access would apply. Clause 12(5) already provides for the transport vehicle exemption to be modified. We believe that the most appropriate way to proceed is by separate regulations. Indeed, the new clauses aim to introduce regulations in that area.
We cannot accept the amendments as drafted, for the same reasons that we cannot accept amendment No. 24, which is consequential and applies to Northern Ireland. Therefore, on balance, while we accept the spirit of the amendments, we are not able to accept them as currently drafted. Government policy is already directed at ensuring a fully accessible transport system in the future. In the light of the representations that have been made and the arguments that have been advanced, the Government are preparing to introduce provisions at a later stage in the discussion of the Bill, to amend existing legislation or, where necessary, to introduce new powers covering buses, trains, coaches, trams, taxis, and underground systems—even trolley buses, if such systems are reintroduced in

future. Before the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) asks, as he surely will, we will of course ensure that the necessary amendments are tabled to bring appropriate provision to all parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Tom Clarke: The Minister is right and what he said is important. He said that the Government will introduce measures. Can he make it clear whether they will be in this Bill and, if so, in what form?

Mr. Hague: I cannot precisely specify the form, because the legal work on drafting such amendments is at an early stage. But I can say that provisions will be in the Bill, and to a large extent will probably modify existing legislation, to introduce new powers where necessary to ensure that the Secretary of State for Transport is able to set minimum access standards, with a timetable and with further provisions as necessary covering the areas that I have mentioned—buses, trains, coaches, trams, taxis, underground systems and so on—satisfying the hon. Gentleman on every point except shipping, over which we had the particular problem to which I referred earlier.
Hon. Members will appreciate the crucial importance of ensuring that such legislation is drafted with the full knowledge and agreement of the transport industries. It is in no one's interest, least of all that of disabled people, to introduce measures that would jeopardise the viability of transport operators. My hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London will be particularly concerned to ensure that time scales for the introduction of accessibility requirements reflect the particular circumstances of individual modes of transport. For systems such as London Underground, for example, we are certainly talking long term. Nevertheless, I hope that the House will agree that the embodiment of those powers in legislation will represent another major step in demonstrating that the Government's policies for tackling discrimination are comprehensive and will allow us to meet in their entirety the points that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter, and almost in their entirety the points made by the hon. Member for Monklands, West.
New clause 13 deals with the provision of door-to-door transport services. Its effect would be for the Secretary of State to require local authorities to provide such schemes for disabled people. In fact, local authorities already have powers to provide excellent schemes such as these which do so much to improve independent mobility for disabled people. We believe that local authorities are best placed to assess their priorities in the light of their available resources and their knowledge of local need. The Department of Transport works closely with local authorities and offers advice and guidance on the effective operation of such schemes. I assure my hon. Friends that it will continue to do so, but it is not desirable for the Government to impose regulations on local authorities in this respect. We would, therefore, resist any move to impose requirements on local authorities.
In this context, it is interesting to reflect on the fact that the increasing introduction of accessible mainstream public transport, to which I have made it clear that we are firmly committed, will over time change the role of door-to-door services. For many disabled people, they have up to now been a substitute for other forms of transport which were inaccessible. In future, they will


increasingly become a complement to public transport—for example, by providing local links to accessible main line services.
I hope that all hon. Members will welcome my statement and that, as a consequence, they will not wish to press the new clauses.

Ms Liz Lynne: I welcome the Minister's statement, but I wish that we had heard it earlier. He could have made it in Committee, when we repeatedly debated transport but were told that he was not to be moved. Nevertheless, I congratulate him because he has clearly won the day with some of his colleagues. I am sure that he fought his corner to ensure that transport was dealt with.
It always seemed crazy that bus and train stations had to be accessible but buses and trains did not. Such a state of affairs could be welcomed only by a disabled person who was a train spotting enthusiast as he or she would not be able to get on a train. I am glad that accessibility is to be more widely spread to include those who wish to travel. It is the only way forward. I am glad that the Government have at last decided that all the disabled people and their organisations who have been lobbying for months and all the Opposition Members who have been talking about making transport accessible have been proved right and that the Minister has seen the sense of their arguments.
Disabled peopled have had so many problems with travelling. Only yesterday I issued a report on those problems, which include the fact that only one wheelchair is allowed per train. There will be difficulties with the InterCity 125 trains because the doors are not wide enough for an electronic buggy to get through. There are still some horrendous problems to deal with. We must ensure that they are dealt with quickly and that the Government outline some exact proposals.
The Minister said that he agreed with the spirit of the new clauses, but we need some flesh on that statement. We need to know exactly what he is proposing. Further Government amendments will no doubt be tabled in the other place so we shall see whether the Government are going as far as we want and as far as disabled people want. There are more than 6 million disabled people in this country who will be pleased if the Government go as far as they have been asking or, indeed, demanding. They will not be pleased if, despite today's announcement, they suddenly find that the Government are not going to follow through.
Sixty-two per cent. of disabled people have no access to a car, so it is even more important that they have access to trains and buses. I am glad that the Minister has agreed to move on that point. My report said that it would be halfway through the next century before buses and trains were accessible. If the Minister feels like intervening, I shall be grateful to hear what time scale he has in mind for making buses and trains accessible to disabled people: does he envisage it being halfway through the next century, or will it be sooner? I should like him to make a commitment. It is all very fine to talk about making transport accessible, but what is the time scale?

Mr. Hague: I cannot expand further on the announcement that I have already made. Indeed, the new clause is designed to give the Government regulation-making powers to deal with such matters. We

shall take the hon. Lady's point on board. Neither those who tabled the new clauses nor anyone else could give a timetable for such things off the cuff. An enormous amount of discussion is needed, but the hon. Lady can be assured that the Government's intentions are absolutely sincere.

Ms Lynne: I am grateful to the Minister. I was not expecting him to say that all buses and trains would be accessible next week or even in the next five years; I was seeking merely to get a rough idea of his estimated time scale.
Some vehicles are easy to adapt quickly and some will take longer, but comprehensive legislation is needed. If the Minister's proposals are comprehensive, the House and the organisations representing disabled people will welcome them.

Mr. Alan Howarth: I, too, warmly welcome my hon. Friend the Minister's announcement and congratulate him on it. He knows that when disabled people are asked what is their highest priority in practical terms as to how we should release them from discrimination, many unhesitatingly cite transport first and foremost because it is the key to their having access to a range of other opportunities in life. My hon. Friend the Minister has been aware of that, and I know how happy disabled people will be that he has been able to introduce this transport dimension fairly and squarely into the Bill. We look forward very much to the specific amendments that the Government will table in another place.
The Minister talked about modifications to a complex area of law and envisaged future adjustment to regulation. However, I hope that when he frames this new element in the Bill he will range as widely and be as declaratory as possible. It is an important principle that the unac-ceptability and illegality of unjustifiable discrimination in transport should be clearly set out.
The Minister talked about the Secretary of State having the power to do certain things. I hope that it will be possible for the Government to agree that the Secretary of State should have a duty in so far as may be reasonable, because that would put the matter in a more positive light, which is important in itself. The Government need not be especially nervous about the implications of reasonable-ness. For example, if it became standard that new public transport vehicles should be designed to be accessible, the output volume would be large and unit costs would accordingly come right down. If one sets the fairly minimal costs against the benefits to the economy and to society of increasing access—benefits which are hard to estimate or compute with precision, but which are undoubtedly very large—it is clear that we do not have to fear the cost implications, which a number of people have used as an argument for not proceeding very far, or very fast, in this respect.
I again congratulate and thank my hon. Friend the Minister.

Mr. Roger Berry: I welcome the Minister's statement that, at some stage, the Bill will include provisions on the means of transport. I hope that, in the same spirit in which I welcome that inclusion and applaud that statement, the Minister will recognise that, for a considerable period, a number of hon. Members and many people outside have been arguing for precisely such provision. If I am generous enough in spirit to welcome


the Minister's statement, I hope that he will be generous enough in spirit to acknowledge that many people have been arguing for such provision for a significant period.
It may be—we must obviously wait for the details of the Minister's proposals—that, in practical terms, the Minister's suggestion will not be a million miles away from provisions of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill which provoked the Government into making transport cost estimates which, frankly, were mind boggling. I shall be generous and acknowledge that the Government have made progress. I hope that they will include transport provision and that they will be generous enough to apologise and to say that a mistake was made a mere 12 months ago. We must wait for the details.
I am acutely aware of the fact that, if more powers are contracted out to different Departments, provisions may be introduced in the Bill that will mean that someone else will take care of enforcement, which will lead to more difficulty in enforcing the measure. I want to return to enforcement on a future occasion. Notwithstanding the remarks about the inclusion of transport provision in the Bill, I am genuinely worried that the Government do not yet have the means to enforce a proper equal rights approach.
In yesterday's debate on the disability rights commission, to which many hon. Members are totally committed, an hon. Member—he is not here, so I shall not mention his name—referred to the problem of regulation. We heard the argument, which one comes across frequently, that we should not have too much more regulation, and that the terrible thing about having a commission to ensure equal rights for disabled people was that too much regulation would result. I repeat the point that I made yesterday in a brief intervention. We can consider regulation in different ways. We can consider it as a purely ideological matter—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must consider that matter specifically in relation to transport.

Mr. Berry: Indeed. In relation to transport, I made the point yesterday that, often, public transport access is denied to disabled people. That is the regulation that matters—the excessive and intolerable regulation. Disabled people's lives are regulated by inadequate access to transport. The point which I was trying to make—I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I was not making it well—is that the regulations that limit what disabled people can do are the regulations about which many of us are concerned.
It may be the case, and indeed the Government admit this—it is part of the Bill—that the Government must regulate more so that disabled people's lives are regulated less. That point is no more important in relation to transport than it is in relation to other issues. We must ensure that the Government have a clear policy on Government regulation in public transport so that disabled people's lives may be deregulated.
I support new clause 13. I hope that the hon. Members for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) and for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) did not table it merely as a probing

measure. The new clause contains an excellent idea. Only a fortnight ago, I picked up a leaflet in an underground station. It said:
If you or someone you know can't use Metrobus, Metrorail or other regular public transit because of a disability, MetroAccess is the answer … MetroAccess provides curb-to-curb services for persons with disabilities who cannot use regular public transportation.
It is with regret that I have to inform the House that, as hon. Members have probably guessed, that document was found in the United States of America and not in the United Kingdom. Whatever the future of new clause 13 this afternoon, the hon. Members for Exeter and for Stratford-on-Avon were correct in saying that local authorities or a public transport authority—whatever organisation we choose—should be required to provide reasonable door-to-door transport services for disabled people. However much we improve the rail service, buses and taxis, those people may not be able to have access to a decent transport system. Like other hon. Members, I look forward to the Minister giving details of his new transport provision. I welcome the fact that the Government now recognise that transport needs to be dealt with in their Bill. I wish that they had recognised that 12 months ago.

Mr. Wigley: I greatly welcome the Government's conversion. We look forward to finding out the detail. In July or whenever, when the House of Lords considers the Bill on Report, an opportunity will exist for us to probe those details more than is possible today. We reserve our position.
Unfortunately, the one matter on which I wanted to concentrate in this short debate was shipping and ferry services—the one aspect that does not fall within the Minister's remit. I wanted to bring his attention to the difficulties facing disabled people using such services. I have been approached by a travel consultant. The Travel Freedom organisation operates in Wales. It is run by Mr. Mike Weston Ashford. He collects advice for disabled people on holidays in the United Kingdom and overseas, and on transport and hotel needs. He wrote to me in the context of the legislation and his letter is worth quoting:
One glaring problem is the lack of facilities available within Britain and the need for legislation to enhance the right of disabled people … in respect of travel, accommodation and places of interest.
Attached please find a photocopy of just one example. Here, in response to my communication enquiring of Eurolink, who intend to operate a new ferry service between Sheerness and Vlissingen in respect of facilities for disabled persons, is their response.
I shall quote the response, which is especially pertinent to our debate. Eurolink stated:
We must advise you that, unfortunately, the two vessels which will shortly go into service for the Sheerness to Vlissingen route are not really suitable for disabled travellers.
Whilst we do not wish to turn disabled travellers away, the facilities on board do not fully cater for disabled persons, ie there are no lifts on board nor are there any cabins specially adapted for wheelchair users.
We are aware of the needs of the disabled and will be looking into this aspect of our service so that, at some time in the future, we will be able to offer all travellers the same access to all our facilities and service.
There we have it. That is the sort of problem that is facing disabled people who want to travel by ferry. I remind the Minister that not only is there a ferry service between the


islands in Scotland but an internal United Kingdom ferry link exists between Northern Ireland and the British mainland.
A commonality of service is being developed in Europe. Whatever the general international perspective, standards in Europe should enable disabled people to use ferries and other modes of transport. The Minister has gone a long way in relation to the other modes of transport. I welcome that warmly and look forward to reading the detail. I accept that discussion continues on ferry services, but is it possible in another place to build in regulations to cover ferries? Those regulations could have different starting dates. They could come into effect as and when current international discussions have reached fruition. There could be two parts to those regulations, with some on internal ferries coming on stream immediately. Otherwise the position described in the letter that I quoted will continue and people providing a service, even a new service starting now, will feel at liberty to say, "Sorry, disabled people cannot use this facility." In the spirit of what the Minister has already said about transport, perhaps he would care to consider the possibility of doing something about that later in another place.

Dr. Godman: I thank the Minister for his response to the transport needs of disabled people, and also for the way in which he replied to my intervention about passenger ferry services, especially the Scottish ones, which form an essential link between the islands and the mainland and between different islands.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to think seriously again about the need to provide equality of access for disabled islanders and tourists, and for every other disabled person who travels in the islands, both between islands and between the islands and the mainland. I speak as a former shipwright, and when I next inspect the Isle of Lewis, a passenger ferry ship being built at Ferguson's in Port Glasgow, in my constituency, I shall look closely to ensure that she offers access for disabled people.
That vessel, which will be launched by Princess Alexandra on 18 April, will form an essential link between Stornaway and Ullapool. Islanders have no means of travel apart from either the ferry service or the air service to Inverness and Glasgow; so for disabled people there is little or no choice anyway.
The Minister said that he would bring my remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State for Transport, and I should be grateful if he would also alert the Secretary of State for Scotland, who, as the Minister will readily acknowledge, has responsibility for piers, jetties and quays in Scotland.
In his speech, the Minister said that his aim was to achieve a fully accessible public transport system for all. That is a laudable and honourable objective, and we all share it, but with Scotland's train and bus services there is a long way to go before we attain it. ScotRail has a disgraceful record on disabled people, and I hope that new clause 18, or even the Government's amendments, will persuade Dr. Paul Prescott and other directors of Railtrack in Scotland to get their skates on and improve services.
Here is an example for the Minister. If an American tourist arrived at Glasgow airport seeking to catch a train from the nearest railway station—Paisley Gilmour

Street—he or she would have enormous difficulty in reaching the platform, and even then would have huge problems in boarding a train.
The same is true of all the stations in Inverclyde. At Greenock central station, Port Glasgow station and elsewhere, boarding a train or disembarking from one requires a degree of agility beyond disabled people. That is a disgrace, and I hope that the Bill as amended by the Government will encourage ScotRail, Railtrack and the Strathclyde passenger transport executive to move things along. Hitherto their record has been disgraceful.
That means that for many of my constituents who are disabled and live on low incomes a trip to Glasgow is out of the question, unless they have a friend or relative who can provide a car. At Greenock central station someone who wants to get on a train has to lift himself up about 18 in, which is too far for disabled people.
We must always remember that, because they are denied access to an impervious labour market, many disabled people have to live on low social security incomes. They are therefore confined to public transport systems, and the system in the west of Scotland is an utter scandal at present. I hope that, in the interests of disabled people throughout Scotland, it will be improved within the next three or four years.

Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: I welcome the fact that the Government have changed their mind and seen the absurdity of their original position that there should be equal access to bus and train stations but not to buses or trains. I realise that the Minister cannot go into much detail now, but I want to press him a little further on what he has in mind for trains. I raise that subject not only because of the chaos of rail privatisation that the Government are trying to impose on us but because a constituent asked me to raise the matter.
On Sunday I was asked to visit a woman in a wheelchair who has multiple sclerosis. She told me how she and a friend who also has MS had tried to travel from Edinburgh to Grantown-on-Spey, where there is a holiday establishment for disabled people. British Rail had told her that if they wished to go by train they would have to travel in the guard's van. Fortunately, she and her friend had a contact who could take them there in a motor vehicle with disabled access.
My constituent was upset to be told that she would have to travel in the guard's van. However, like me, she already knew that that might happen, because she had several friends who had had the same problem. She told me how three other people had had to pay £100 each to make the journey in a handicab, and how another friend had travelled all the way from Edinburgh to Dorset in the cage of a guard's van. Rightly, she said that was a demeaning experience and that it could also be dangerous if, as was the case, the person concerned was in a manual wheelchair whose brakes were not absolutely foolproof. Furthermore, the doors of toilets on trains are not wide enough for wheelchairs.
Can the Minister give us any guidance on what he intends to do about such matters? I know that the provision in the Bill will be general, but I should like to have something to say to my constituent about how the Minister imagines the problem being resolved. It does not seem to me that it would be inordinately expensive to do something about it. I believe that there is already usually one place on a train where a wheelchair can be clamped.


Surely other places could easily be converted for that purpose without great expense. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some reassurance to convey to my constituent.

Mr. Hague: As I explained to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne), I cannot expand on the announcement that I have already made. But I have given a commitment about taking a power through the Bill to make regulations covering trains and other modes of transport and, of course, the points made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) are among those that the Government and others, including rail operators, will want to take into account in the discussions about future regulations.

Mr. Barnes: I have two things to say. The first is about the importance of what we are discussing, and the other is about the Minister's statement, which is also important. A while ago, I tabled an amendment to a social security measure dealing with providing mobility allowance for double amputees. At the time the allowance was not paid automatically, and once a person had lost both legs and had artificial limbs there was a test to see whether he or she was entitled to mobility allowance. I remember that the leader of Plaid Cymru, the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), was in the House and joined the discussion.
I was concerned about my constituent, the late Melvin Wall, who was a double amputee and found difficulty getting out and moving around. He needed his mobility allowance so that he could get around. He liked to be picked up in a taxi on a fine day and taken to the nearby Rother valley, where he would be placed at the edge of an artificial lake. Throughout the day he liked to move around that artificial lake from bench to bench, resting as he went and, when the day was over, to be taken back. The quality of his life was vastly improved by that mobility allowance. Such a facility is equally important in the new clauses.
6 pm
The amendment was not adopted on the occasion to which I referred because it was withdrawn. The Minister's predecessor promised to introduce the mobility allowance later in regulations, and indeed he did so. Unfortunately, Melvin Wall benefited from it for a short time only, because he died soon afterwards. His case is a clear example of the need for people to be able to get around, move about, improve the nature of their lives by so doing and thereby be dealt with as full citizens in society.
I am a little more sceptical about the Minister's statement than some hon. Members—perhaps that is my nature. We are rather in limbo. I am not quite sure whether the bottle is half full or half empty. Such a speech should have been presented as a statement in the House, after which we could have asked questions. Instead, hon. Members have asked questions and the Minister has jumped back in response. The Minister has not been able to say anything else, but he has offered some response to the points put forward. It is as if we have used the House's time on Report for statement purposes, which seems procedurally odd.
After Report is Third Reading, and on Third Reading we should be reasonably clear about the proposed legislation. Even though various changes may be made in the Lords and even if the Bill gets into trouble there, we should have the authority to say that the Bill should be passed as it was on Third Reading, a year after its First Reading. It is beholden on Ministers to try to get us to a stage where we know, as clearly as possible, where we are, apart from a little tidying up which may occur in the other place.
The Bill has not progressed in such a way. Two major statements about changes to the Bill concerning education and transport have been made. I am pleased about those changes, but I think that they are as a result of important pressure, which has been exerted by people outside the House and by the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill in the cupboard. The Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill is locked away in the cupboard and will not be released into Committee to progress properly. If we are dissatisfied with what occurs in another place, not only will we have the opportunity to discuss the Lords amendments and whether we think that they are good enough, but we will have an alternative. That alternative should be given the opportunity to see the light of day—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a Third Reading speech and I urge him to stick precisely to the new clauses.

Mr. Barnes: I would especially like to stress the transport provisions in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, some of which are included in the new clauses and amendments.

Mr. Berry: Does my hon. Friend find it somewhat ironical that the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill was criticised for being too vague about transport and that was why the Government were unhappy, yet here we are this afternoon, as he says, welcoming even more vague proposals?

Mr. Barnes: Yes, it is ironic and there are strong political reasons for it. It is entirely justifiable to say that the other Bill is helping, together with other action that people are taking, to nudge such provisions forward. The Government's Bill has been improved by some of the Minister's statements, such as the statement on transport. It is difficult to judge, however, by how much it has been improved, whether the statements and promises make it an acceptable Bill and how it measures up to the alternative Bill. The alternative must be present for as long as possible to push the Government's Bill further. In the end, when it comes to transport and other aspects, the provisions of the alternative should be fully operated.
As has been mentioned, the intentions outlined by the Minister could work rather well if a disability rights commission were set up to pick them up, run with them and do a great deal of the work and we could make suggestions and recommendations.

Sir John Hannam: The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) spoke of the Minister pulling a rabbit out of a hidden hat. He has certainly done that, and a whopping Easter bunny it is, too. Yesterday we brought education into the Bill and today my hon. Friend has achieved our other main objective of bringing transport into the Bill. I pay tribute to all hon. Members from all parties who have consistently pressed the case for


transport to be brought into the Bill. In view of the assurances given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, who, together with our hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London, deserves our thanks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am assuming that the new clause which I moved is still before the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The technical position is that if the hon. Gentleman wishes to move new clause 18 formally, he may do so, at which point I shall have to put the Question. Does he wish to move new clause 18 formally?

Mr. Clarke: I had hoped that the rules of the House would entitle me to ask the Minister a few more questions and then to decide whether to move the motion on this important new clause.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been in the House some while and he must know that new clause 18 was grouped with new clause 11. Once the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) had begged to ask leave to withdraw the motion, I had put the Question and there were no objections, the motion was withdrawn. The only procedure that is now available to hon. Members is to move the new clause formally, in which case I have to put the Question. Formally means just that—not a speech.

Mr. Clarke: Further to my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is not my intention to move the new clause formally, but I hope that on Third Reading I can respond to the Minister's comments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that, on Third Reading, he is restricted to addressing what is in the Bill. Within that, he has plenty of scope.

Clause 1

MEANING OF "DISABILITY" AND "DISABLED PERSON"

Mr. Alan Howarth: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 1, line 10, after 'activities', insert
`or has a history of having had such an impairment'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 15, in page 1, line 10, after 'activities', insert or
(b) a history of having had such an impairment.'.
No. 17, in page 1, line 10, after 'activities', insert or
(b) a condition which is likely to cause him to have such an impairment in the future.'.
Government amendments Nos. 98 to 100 and 128 to 131.
No. 21, in schedule 1, page 29, line 11, at end insert—'History of having had an impairment—
4A.—(1) A person shall be treated as having a history of having had an impairment if there is evidence in medical records that he has, in the past, had an impairment which falls within the scope of any other of the provisions of this Schedule.
(2) Regulations may prescribe other forms of evidence, apart from medical records, which may be taken to demonstrate that a person has a history of having had an impairment under sub-paragraph (1) above.'.

Government amendment No. 132.
No. 13, in page 30, leave out lines 9 to 13 and insert—
'(2) Where a medical test reveals a genetic predisposition in a person to a progressive condition, sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall apply to that person as if he were suffering from that condition.'.
Government amendment No. 133.
No. 18, in clause 2, page 1, line 16, after 'effect', insert
',or
(c) whether a person is to be treated as having a history of having had an impairment.'.
Government amendment No. 127.

Mr. Howarth: The purpose of amendment No. 13 is to remove an item in the Bill which seems to be misconceived and which would have deeply unhappy and damaging consequences for people who are destined to suffer particularly terrible disabilities.
Schedule 1(7), which deals with progressive conditions in the Bill as it is drafted specifies that
Where a person—

(a) suffers from a progressive condition … but
(b) does not have an impairment which has a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, he shall be taken to have such an impairment".

Schedule 1(7)(2) proceeds specifically to provide that where
it is likely that the person concerned will suffer from a progressive condition at some time in the future (for example, where a person has a genetic or other predisposition to a progressive condition)
he shall not have the protection of the legislation.
I believe that the latter provision is unfortunate in its consequence. I cannot believe that the Government intended the consequences that would follow from it. Therefore, I have tabled amendment No. 13 so that
Where a medical test reveals a genetic predisposition in a person to a progressive condition
he will after all enjoy the protection of the Bill against discrimination.
My particular interest in genetically transmitted diseases goes back for some years during a period in which I have been the national chair of the Huntington's Disease Association. Huntington's disease is one of the most terrible conditions from which anyone can suffer. The association is one of some 130 organisations which are members of the Genetic Interest Group. I have developed and tabled the amendment in consultation with the group.
I believe that it is wrong to provide that those with a genetic predisposition to a late-onset disease, but who are not yet in the symptomatic phase, should be excluded from the protection that we give to disabled people from discrimination. Unless we so protect them, they will be liable to suffer discrimination in employment, when they seek insurance and in terms of credit ratings. A mass of practical difficulties could well be laid upon them. For heaven's sake, their lives are hard enough. They have to live with the knowledge of the near certainty that they will develop a disease. They surely deserve our particular consideration and support.
Scientific advance in genetics is rapid. The human genome project is one of the largest research projects which is taking place today. The range of conditions that can be predicted and the accuracy with which they can be predicted is increasing by leaps and bounds. In the case


of Huntington's disease, prediction is now 99 per cent. accurate and can be made many years before the symptoms manifest themselves. It is now established that certain forms of breast cancer and bowel cancer and certain types of heart disease and diabetes are the consequence of genetic factors. As the House knows, some forms of Alzheimer's disease are also known to be caused by genetic factors.
Unlike new clause 5, my amendment would not secure protection from discrimination for people who were in the pre-symptomatic phase of HIV unless perhaps it could be demonstrated that the condition was genetic in its origin. I am not scientist enough to be able to offer an opinion on that. I regard it as wrong to exclude from protection against discrimination people who are HIV positive but pre-symptomatic. Whereas new clause 5 dealt with that, amendment No. 13 does not. I believe that there were other difficulties with new clause 5.
I put it to my hon. Friend the Minister that the Bill as it is drafted encourages discrimination. It provides a positive incentive to those who may be minded to discriminate to do so early because, whereas it would be illegal for them to discriminate against someone once he evinced the symptoms, it would not be illegal for them to discriminate against someone who had not yet manifested the symptoms.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: How does my hon. Friend square his comments with the suggestion made to members of the Science and Technology Select Committee that literally everyone is predisposed to some late-onset disease or another and that that is not in fact a disability? How does he draw the distinction between discrimination against the disabled, which is the subject of the Bill, and discrimination in the more general sense, on which of course we are all with him?

Mr. Howarth: I am in favour of protecting everyone from discrimination. The act of discrimination is what we find offensive. The particular point that I make to my hon. Friend beyond what I have already said is that we should make it illegal for people to be discriminated against because they are liable to develop a particular medical condition when they have not yet developed that condition. That seems simply offensive.

Mr. Batiste: The Bill is about discrimination in the context of disability. It is wrong in principle and dangerous in practice, as I shall perhaps be able to demonstrate later, to treat predisposition as a disability.

Mr. Howarth: I should like to deal with that point in a few moments.

Sir Gerard Vaughan: The point that my hon. Friend may not have understood is that we are apparently all likely to have a genetic abnormality within us. The point is that we do not know what that genetic abnormality means. We may have a genetic abnormality of which we know the significance, but we may not know

whether that abnormality will develop. I do not see how we can speculate on the genetic information that we have at present and write it into anti-discrimination legislation.

Mr. Howarth: My amendment specifies that we are dealing with cases in which a medical test reveals genetic predisposition. We are dealing with specific, objectively ascertained circumstances.

Sir Gerard Vaughan: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Howarth: May I develop my argument a little further? My hon. Friends, who I know have thought carefully about the issue on the Science and Technology Select Committee, will perhaps be able to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Unfortunately, the Bill has built into it a provision in schedule 1(7) which in effect provides a positive incentive to those minded to discriminate to do so early—to get their retaliation in first, so to speak. That is perverse and contrary to the spirit that animates the Bill. It is surely an outcome that my hon. Friend the Minister cannot have intended.
Let me illustrate what might happen in circumstances fairly close to home or at least to the office of my hon. Friend the Minister. The civil service employs many women. Some of the women whom the civil service employs will have a genetic predisposition to breast cancer. It would surely not be right for the civil service as an employer to require them to provide details of their medical condition, even positively to seek out evidence of such a predisposition and then to exclude some women from employment. Common sense and common decency tells us that that would be wrong.
The decision to take a predictive test is a major one, and it is a difficult and painful decision in the lives of individuals and their families. It may lead to much benefit. It may lead—if the test is negative—to relief from care and from the fear of having the condition. But if the test is positive and it is predicted that the person will develop the condition, he must live with the distress of knowing that, and he will then be faced with some desperately difficult decisions in his personal life. For example, he must decide whether to have children or whether to undergo medical treatment which may be traumatic.
The effect of the Bill as worded would be to add to that person's dilemmas, because he could face discrimination in a range of areas. As my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) said, the Bill is about people who are disabled, and he was perfectly right to say that people in the pre-symptomatic phase are not disabled. But I maintain that it is perverse that it should be legal to discriminate earlier where it would not be legal to discriminate later when the symptoms had manifested themselves. That cannot be sensible or right.

Dr. Godman: I hastily observe that I am not an expert in this field. Would the hon. Gentleman's amendment, which concerns the history of impairment, give protection to someone who has suffered a severe mental illness but has experienced what used to be called a spontaneous


remission, and is able to retake his place in everyday life? Would such a person, having experienced that recovery, be protected by the amendment?

Mr. Howarth: Those are not circumstances which I had in mind during the formulation of the amendment, and I doubt if a person in such circumstances would be protected. That would need careful interpretation.
The amendment will rescue from discrimination people who will develop certain diseases late on, and it will also rescue the Government from the embarrassment which they will surely be in if the perverse consequences which I have described occur. I propose that we proceed by determining that anti-discrimination provision applies to people in the pre-symptomatic phase as if they were disabled. I acknowledge, as has been said, that people who are in the pre-symptomatic phase are not disabled, but I propose that—for the purposes of providing practical protection for them—we should treat them as if they were disabled.
The amendment proceeds differently from new clause 5, which defines people in the pre-symptomatic phase as disabled. That would be regrettable, because people who are not yet disabled do not—naturally enough—wish to be regarded or defined as such.
The amendment would be equitable, and it certainly would be of enormous benefit to individuals who are at risk. I shall illustrate how it would be fair, proper and right to introduce the amendment. I am informed by the Genetic Interest Group of a case of a town planner with sickle cell disease who was employed by one London borough and then moved to a new job in another borough. He was a member of the local government pension fund, but the transfer of his pension with his new employment was initially vetoed by the fund when it was approached by his new employers, who were aware of his condition. In the end, it turned out all right, but confusion reigned for some months and he experienced enormous anxiety. If that issue had not been resolved, he would not have been able to go back to his old job, which had gone. The trustees of the pension fund would have been free under the law as it is—and under the law as my hon. Friend the Minister proposes—to refuse to allow that transfer.
The amendment would be fair to employers and providers, and it would certainly entail them incurring no costs beyond those which they will incur as a result of the existing provisions proposed by the Government. The amendment merely requires them not to treat an individual unfairly when he is healthy. I do not see how my hon. Friend the Minister can reasonably object to that.
The amendment ought to satisfy the Government, as I was careful not to extend the definition of disability beyond the commonsense terms which I know my hon. Friend is most anxious to retain. If the Government do not accept the amendment, they and the taxpayer will suffer. They will suffer because of an increase in the cost to the public purse as a result of individuals who have been excluded from employment and denied the opportunity to make private provision for themselves becoming more dependent on benefits and on publicly funded services.
Just as the Government have made it clear that they are anxious to ensure that victimisation is not within the law, the same principle applies here. We are preventing people

from being victimised because of a future condition which they will develop, and from being victimised by having the discrimination shifted forward in time.
The change to the Bill would provide a positive inducement to employers, financial services organisations and other groups to develop codes of good practice and to make their procedures transparent, logical and fair.
My hon. Friend the Minister may argue, as was argued in Committee by the Government, that the amendment is unnecessary because employment protection legislation deals with the matter. I have no doubt that that legislation does provide protection for people who have been employed for more than a certain number of years. But if they have not been employed for that number of years, they are not protected. There is also no protection for those seeking work, or for those who are looking to move to a new job and, with the flexible labour markets in which my right hon. and hon. Friends glory, that is becoming a particularly important consideration.
In the same way, existing insurance policies might well remain valid, but new ones will be increasingly difficult for people in this predicament to obtain.
I am advised by my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet that the Select Committee has heard the case put by distinguished geneticists that the right way to protect people in the pre-symptomatic phase and before the late onset of a genetically transmitted condition is through confidentiality. I do not think that that is sufficient protection. Secrets are not kept, and it would be most unreasonable if people who have such a diagnosis were required to live a furtive life in that regard. It would be unfair to them, and often it would be unfair to employers and others who might have a just entitlement to know. In any case, it is the act of discrimination itself that is offensive, and we ought to deal with that.
I am not arguing that justified and reasonable discrimination should be made illegal. For example, insurers who have sound actuarial reasons for discriminating against a person so diagnosed would not be prevented by the amendment from doing so. I do not think that trying to screen out or bury the problem through relying upon confidentiality is the answer, although that argument has been put seriously in the face of other difficulties.

Sir Gerard Vaughan: One of the issues that was put to us by the insurance companies was whether they have the right to demand the genetic screening of a person. If so, do they have the right to load the premiums? If so, do they have the right to let other members of the person's family know of the genetic problem? There are wide complications in this matter. We have heard that a person who discovers that he has a genetic abnormality may not know the implications of that. If he does know, it can cause immense psychological and social difficulties of the type that my hon. Friend described.

Mr. Howarth: In his characteristically sensitive way, my hon. Friend raises an important issue, which I acknowledge.
My amendment deals with a limited range of circumstances. It specifies a situation in which a medical test reveals a genetic predisposition in the person to a progressive condition. I am not trying to provide answers to the range of large, difficult, practical and ethical questions that arise from the advance of genetic science


and understanding. We could not do so in this context. It would be a colossal task for the House as a whole and no doubt it is one with which we shall increasingly have to grapple. That should not be used as an argument for waiting to deal with a clearly identified evil that would be an accidental consequence of the legislation as it stands.
6.30 pm
In truth, we will never end that discussion about all the ethical and practical issues that flow from genetics, but if we try to provide some all-embracing, grandiose solution, we shall almost certainly fail and in the meantime we will leave a clearly identified evil to become established. The best is so often liable to be the enemy of the good and it would be so in this case. Equally, we should not embark on a large discussion on privacy and confidentiality.
We are talking about cases for which we already have evidence. We should not confuse this issue with the other issues with which my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People and other hon. Friends who have been actively involved with the Bill are concerned. This is a distinct issue and we can consider reputation apart from this amendment. We are talking about matters of established fact or ascertainable likelihood and not about reputation in the more general sense.
I apologise for having detained the House so long on this issue, but it is one that matters very much. We have the remedy before us in the amendment and I hope that the House will be willing to accept it.

Mr. Corbett: This is a difficult area with wide scientific implications. As the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) demonstrated, it is something with which the Bill ought properly to be concerned. Through the Bill, we want to avoid discrimination against people with disabilities. I do not know whether this will help hon. Members who questioned the hon. Gentleman, but we are focusing on those people who have been diagnosed, as a result of a medical test, as having a specific and progressive condition. That is the best way that I can put it in layman's language.
We are concerned with three broad areas—genetic predisposition, those diagnosed as having HIV or AIDS and known to be carrying the HIV virus, and a third group of people who are known to have sensory disabilities. As far as is possible, we want to leave none of those groups behind.

Mr. Batiste: By categorising what are defined as specific groups, the hon. Gentleman identified people with a genetic predisposition, but in a relatively short space of time everyone will be diagnosed as having some genetic predisposition or another. The hon. Gentleman is effectively saying that, because everyone will die one day, one should not be discriminated against simply on that ground because one has a better idea of the route by which it will happen.

Mr. Corbett: As I told the hon. Gentleman, I want to focus on those people with a diagnosed progressive condition. I take his point—we are all born to die, but we might as well pack up and go home on the basis of that argument.
We are talking about people who, on the basis of medical tests, are identifiable. As the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon said, much misunderstanding,

prejudice and false information is being spread about people who have been diagnosed as having HIV or AIDS and those carrying the HIV virus. Companies such as Texaco, British Airways and Harrods make an HIV test a condition of employment. Happily, other firms in similar industries do not test the people they take on and have non-discrimination policies. They include Esso, Virgin Atlantic Airways, Sainsbury and Kingfisher.
The Terrence Higgins Trust, of which I am pleased to be a patron, gives examples—with which I will not weary the House—of people in work who have been found to be HIV positive as a result of rumour or hearsay and have been dismissed from their jobs. That does happen and it is no good saying that there is a legal remedy if they have worked for a company for more than two years, as very few people will risk the attendant publicity of taking a case of that type to an industrial tribunal on the ground of wrongful dismissal under present legislation or would do so even if their cases were included in the provisions of this Bill.
In an earlier debate, we heard examples of the 17 in every 100 people who suffer from some form of hearing loss. To deny them the cover of the Bill—if that is what the Bill does and there are some doubts about that—is to deny the deaf and hard of hearing their true identity as a distinct group with different needs. All hon. Members who have met people who are deaf or hard of hearing know exactly what that means.
This may be an misunderstanding that the Minister can clear up, but my reading of the Bill gives me the impression that it encourages the employer who suspects that someone has a progressive condition to get in with discrimination early because the person is not covered until he or she exhibits the symptoms of that disability. I find that offensive. If we say that we will not take seriously discrimination against disabled people until the way in which they present themselves shrieks disability at us, we are heading in the wrong direction.
We are talking about people who have been diagnosed after a medical test, who are in the pre-symptomatic state and whom we know will suffer the sad consequences of the conditions over a period of time, which will vary with the individual and the conditions. We want to ensure that, as far as possible, the Bill can offer them some help and protection.

Mr. Batiste: I have enormous respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), who tabled the amendment, and a great deal of sympathy for what he is trying to do. I believe that his approach is wrong, however, and will explain why.
I should preface my comments by saying that I am a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which is examining the ethical, regulatory and commercial implications of human genetic research. It is probably the most interesting study with which I have been involved, and it is one of the most impressive antidotes to the short-termism of parliamentary life, in that we are discussing something that will be of the most dramatic importance to everyone during the next century.
We have taken a huge amount of evidence on a matter that will be so important and, because of its importance, will embrace uniquely complex moral and practical issues. I have no doubt that the House will be called upon to legislate on some of the issues—probably in the not so distant future.
It is wrong and dangerous to enshrine now, in primary legislation, ad hoc judgments outside the context of a comprehensive and considered framework, especially as the judgment that we are being invited to make today is flawed.
The Bill is about disability and discrimination, and the amendment seeks to treat genetic predisposition as a disability.

Mr. Alan Howarth: It does not treat it as a disability; it treats it as if a person with that condition were disabled, to ensure that the offence of discrimination does not occur. I ask my hon. Friend to focus on the moral aspect of the matter, and to address himself to the rights and wrongs of discrimination in a circumstance where someone may think that somebody else is disabled.

Mr. Batiste: I have no difference with my hon. Friend in seeking to prevent discrimination in the sort of cases that he describes. I simply believe that what he has expressed, coloured as it is by the fact that his experience relates to information that he has received from his connection with the Huntington's Disease Association and genetics interest groups, does not reflect the broader picture. I ask him, in turn, to focus on the fact that to try to bracket genetic predisposition with disability is the worst possible signal to give at this point in the development of the science, for reasons that I shall describe in a moment.

Mr. Andrew Miller: The hon. Gentleman has failed to read the entire schedule. Clear reference is made in this amendment, the subsequent Government amendment and an amendment tabled by Opposition Members to terminology that overcomes his difficulty. The text before us refers to people who suffer from progressive conditions, and defines the kind of ballpark we are in.
I do not think that the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) is really suggesting that Huntington's disease is not a condition which is almost certain to lead to discrimination. The amendment of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) refers not to obscure matters like the colour of one's eyes but to serious progressive conditions.

Mr. Batiste: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, who is also a member of the Science and Technology Select Committee, he is missing the point. While the amendment has been proposed in the context of Huntington's disease and other serious defects, the reality is that genetic testing of predisposition will, in a relatively short time, cover the whole spectrum from Huntington's disease to predisposition to a variety of cancers, respiratory disease and a range of other diseases. The tests in each case will be differently balanced.
For example, if someone with a genetic predisposition to Huntington's disease lives long enough, he or she will almost certainly contract Huntington's disease. But the predisposition itself and the discovery of the gene for that predisposition make it more likely that a cure will be found for that disease within the person's lifetime.

Sir Gerard Vaughan: I do not wish to argue about details, but Huntington's chorea can occur quite early in life. The age of onset can be progressively younger and run through some parts of a family. So we cannot say that

a person will not develop that condition for a great number of years, as he may develop it quite soon. Moreover, we know that the person is properly diagnosed.

Mr. Batiste: Indeed he may. I have drawn a picture of one end of the spectrum. The other end is that people will be diagnosed for all kinds of serious diseases with a percentage possibility that they may or may not contract them at some time in their lifetime, but we have no way of predicting when they are likely to do so.
To say that the amendment is confined to a small group of people is wrong, because, within a short time, it will apply to an ever-growing number of people and, ultimately, to everybody. If hon. Members would listen to me for a moment more, they would understand that I am not trying to advocate discrimination, but saying that we should deal with this matter through different routes that would not have the serious side effects which clinical geneticists already advise us this will have if we try to treat the predisposition as a disability.
6.45 pm
It is wrong to believe that there is one healthy genetic norm. That is a deterministic judgment which has nothing to do with this science. In reality, every person is unique and predisposed to some serious disease or another. Predisposition to one disease may provide protection against another serious disease.
The whole process of genetic prediction of predisposition is a step towards understanding the nature of a disease and a cure for it, and hence the defeat of the original prediction. It is wrong to label any human genome as containing and constituting a disability when there is no current physical or mental symptom.
That is not to countenance discrimination, but to say that the solutions to genetic discrimination are far more complex than envisaged in the amendment, and are outside the Bill's scope. The worst case of genetic discrimination that has occurred so far is that of sickle-cell anaemia carriers in the US, where massive discrimination took place because of a well-intentioned attempt to define sickle-cell anaemia as a disability, which caused havoc to large numbers of people who were never likely to contract the disease in the first place.
We had an opportunity in the Select Committee as recently as last week to take evidence from one of the most eminent clinical geneticists in this country, Professor Modell. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) asked him:
If you discovered, as it were, that you had been screened and you had got this predisposition, should it be illegal to discriminate against you on the grounds that you had this predisposition … ?
The response from Professor Modell was clear and unambiguous. He said:
It seems to me the suggestion that people should have this protection on the grounds of a predisposition could be quite debilitating and damaging to the individual. In my own area, forgive me for … returning to thalassaemia, but we have adult patients and one of the most active arguments between them at international meetings is over exactly this issue, because there are some countries in which, by virtue of their diagnosis, they are entitled to a certain amount of pension, free cars, going to university, and they feel that this actually undermines their self-esteem as adult individuals. And I can see this, it actually causes a great deal of social harm, to give people protection on the basis of a diagnosis. They would not mind the protection if they were handicapped"—
but not on the basis of diagnosis.
I went on to suggest:
I think what you are suggesting is that the protection should actually come through proper codes of secrecy and privacy, in relation to genetic screening information, rather than by defining fairly artificially the predisposition as being a disability".
Professor Modell replied:
Absolutely, yes.
The House will have to make many difficult decisions as genetic science increases in its knowledge and its impact on a range of issues. Those include life assurance; mass screening; informed consent; privacy of information; financing of health care; and employment. The solutions to those problems are not always the most obvious.
The best bioethics framework document that I have seen so far is a draft convention by the Council of Europe. It deals with predictive testing and its implications, and refers to predictive testing for serious late-onset diseases, which is at the heart of this amendment, but does so in a wider and more appropriate context than the Bill. The right course for us is to ratify that convention and establish a national bioethics commission to operate within it and make considered recommendations for legislation in this country. It is not to make piecemeal judgments and enshrine them in primary legislation, however well meaning.

Ms Lynne: I shall be brief, as many hon. Members wish to speak in this debate.
Definition is one of the most important aspects of the Bill. It means that people will either be assisted by the legislation or excluded from it, depending on the definition of "disability". I tabled an amendment in Committee about definition for that very reason. I felt that it was one of the most important parts of the Bill, and I am pleased to discuss it today.
Many illnesses and disabilities are not covered by the current definition of disability in clause 1, but they should be. Transient illnesses, such as mental illness or epilepsy, are not properly covered by the definition, nor are intermittent illnesses such as myalgic encephalomyelitis—ME. People will not be covered by the definition before the onset of the symptoms of a degenerative illness such as multiple sclerosis. The same applies to people with dormant conditions such as HIV.
People will be discriminated against because of their past or future illnesses, because the definition in clause 1 may exclude depression or someone with a history of mental illness. We raised that in Committee, but we received no satisfactory answers from Ministers. We must be given a satisfactory reply today, because that definition is not wide enough.
Genetic disorders have already been mentioned by several hon. Members, who have spoken about the advances that have been made. That we get the Bill right is therefore a serious matter. A genetic test can now be conducted to see if someone is predisposed to Alzheimer's disease. Some 634,000 people in this country have dementia, and of those, 70 per cent. will get Alzheimer's disease. If that test is positive, the person tested could be discriminated against by employers, who might refuse to take him on because he may get Alzheimer's disease in another few years.
People will be subject to actual discrimination because of a test they took to find out whether they are predisposed to a particular disease. Such people could be debarred from insurance and employment, so they need to be included in the definition in clause 1. People suffering from asymptomatic HIV are another example, because those who have been diagnosed with the HIV virus are already discriminated against, even though no one has provided us with the time scale for the onset of the symptoms of that disease.
Sense—the National Deaf-Blind and Rubella Association—has done extremely good work in advising hon. Members about the problems of the definition in clause 1 and other problems connected with the Bill. It is extremely worried that people with Usher syndrome will be excluded from the definition.
Someone with that syndrome may have a slight hearing loss or may be born with a hearing impairment. He may get employment, but if an employer knows that that person could also lose his sight in his late 20s, he could be debarred from even getting that employment. I cannot think of anything more devastating than dual sensory loss. Those suffering from Usher syndrome must be included in the definition.
Future conditions are not included in the definition, yet it should be inclusive, not exclusive. That is what discrimination is all about. We need a clear, comprehensive and, above all, workable definition.
The current definition in clause 1 is far too narrow, and it will create confusion and uncertainty. It will lead to lengthy disputes, especially when we consider how the Bill deals with clinically well-recognised illnesses. Someone who has been sectioned under the Mental Health Act 1983 might not be covered by the definition. It seems absolutely incredible that a person could be judged not to have a mental impairment, but could be locked up against his will, and still not come within the remit of this Bill.
That definition must be amended to include not just present disabilities, but a history of illness and a reputation for having an illness or disability. Without that change, the definition is too tight. I sincerely hope that hon. Members will vote for amendment No. 12.

Sir John Hannam: My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) has spoken about amendment No. 13 on genetic predisposition. Organisations such as the Alzheimer's Disease Society, of which I am a vice-president, have expressed concern that the Bill as it stands fails to afford protection from unfair discrimination to those people who can be identified by predictive genetic testing as being at risk of becoming disabled due to genetic causes. They fear that information gathered from genetic testing could be used to restrict an individual's access to the life opportunities mentioned by other hon. Members.
I share some of the apprehension that certain hon. Friends have expressed about the correct time to legislate, given that so much research is being conducted into genetics. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to answer that point.
Amendment No. 12 relates to the history of an impairment. I hope that we can make some progress on that, because I know from constituency experiences of individuals, particularly people working in the civil service, who have suffered discrimination as a result of previously having suffered depression, a nervous


breakdown or other illnesses. It was a long time before some of those people became aware that that medical evidence had affected their careers.
The amendment would extend the definition of a disabled person given in clause 1. I support it because the existing definition is unnecessarily restrictive, as it excludes many people who suffer from the most severe and unjustified discrimination.
The current definition concentrates entirely on an individual's ability
to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
The Government argue that that definition represents common sense. At first glance, it may seem fair that people who are not really disabled should not be covered by the Bill, but on closer examination, problems become clear. As I have explained, people who have been treated for depression often find that employers are prejudiced against them. As the Bill stands, they will be entitled to protection only if they can show that their depression is likely to recur in the future. That is not common sense, nor is it equitable.
I have cited one group of people who should be included within the definition, but many others will be ignored despite the fact that they are already discriminated against on the basis of disability. They may exclude people with epilepsy, diabetes or ME. People with visual, hearing or other impairments may also be excluded because their disabilities are not severe enough.
To claim the right to fair and equal treatment, a person will first have to convince an employer or a court how incapable he is. That contradicts the real message of the Bill, which should be to promote an understanding of the abilities of disabled people. It is also at odds with the dignity and respect that disabled people have the right to expect from a law aimed at ending discrimination against them.
Concern has been expressed about extending the definition too widely, so that it could cover the whole population. A similar problem has not arisen with other equality laws that have been drafted precisely to include everyone. The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 makes discrimination against men or women on the basis of gender illegal; similarly, the Race Relations Act 1976 protects anyone, black or white, from racial prejudice. It makes sense for protection against discrimination on the basis of disability to be equally broadly drawn.
The right to fair treatment should not be rationed. I therefore hope that the Minister will heed those arguments when considering amendment No. 12.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: Like the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste), I am a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, but I believe that the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) is an appropriate interim measure to anticipate the much wider legislation which will be needed in the near future. I agree with the hon. Member for Elmet about that. The Select Committee is in the process of exploring such legislation.
As the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon said, the present draft of the schedule has a positive bias against those with a genetic predisposition. That is plainly wrong. If it were neutral, that would be a different matter. If the Bill creates a positive incentive for an employer or anyone else to discriminate against a person who has a genetic

predisposition—it will be possible to discriminate against him only before it becomes a progressive condition—that is wrong.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if employers or insurance companies are allowed to discriminate against people with genetic predispositions, the effect may be to give people a disincentive not to have genetic tests and that, in many cases, such as that of a familial tendency to breast cancer or raised cholesterol, that may be deleterious to that person's health? Therefore, it is extremely important to pass the amendment in terms of discrimination.

7 pm

Dr. Bray: My hon. Friend raises several important issues that need to be regarded in a wider context.
There is a range of considerations. First, the circumstances differ widely for different genetic predispositions. Sometimes there is a high probability that an illness or malcondition will occur; at other times, there is a low probability. In some cases, it is long postponed; in other cases, it occurs at a very early age. In some cases, there is rapid progress in research and there is the prospect that some treatment may be found during the lifetime of the person affected. In other cases, it is a hugely difficult issue whereby, according to the present state of knowledge, there is not much optimism of a therapy being found in the foreseeable future.
Against that background, we are dealing with public attitudes and parliamentary attitudes that are inappropriate to consideration of those issues. A public who expect one to insure against risks of a million to one—against the extreme improbability of people incurring cancer as a result of a tiny radiation leak, requiring huge investment at a nuclear power station or something like that to avoid that risk—are plainly not a public who are able to cope with 1 per cent., 10 per cent. or 30 per cent. probabilities of their having a child with a certain predisposition, which they will need to come to terms with in their personal lives.
In Parliament, it has been money for old jam to take up some cause about which the public can be panicked and to build that up into a great campaign, producing wild biases in the allocation of resources, in the direction of research and so on, which do not lead to a sensible set of personal attitudes. The most important aspect of legislation is the type of demonstration it gives people as to how they should react in certain circumstances.

Sir Giles Shaw: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is exactly the problem that so much may be expected of genetic screening and so many unwise decisions might be taken in the light of genetic screening that makes it essential to avoid a mass hysteria resulting from people supposing that we shall all be able to have genetic screening, and that we shall all be found to have Alzheimer's disease? Hence the disservice that would be done, in my humble estimation, if the amendment were made, because it would arouse expectations that should not be aroused, and would make such persons even more vulnerable than they may feel now.

Dr. Bray: The hon. Gentleman, who is Chairman of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, well understands the complexities. My judgment would be that, on the whole, given the present set of public and


parliamentary attitudes, given the splendid progress that the Committee is making under his enlightened chairmanship, and given the likelihood that the Government will accept the recommendations that we make in that report, it is a sensible measure, in response to the alert identification of the bias in the Bill by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), to tackle the practical position that it creates by the amendment that he has tabled.
I repeat that it can be only a temporary disposition, and the House must return to those matters.

Mr. Wigley: I approach the issue from the viewpoint of disability, although I should have very much liked to have been on the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which is inquiring into those matters.
I suppose that I should declare an interest immediately, because I lost two boys because of a genetic condition, and therefore I am a carrier. That may put me in a different position from other Members of the House. On the other hand, it may not, because all of us have on average half a dozen genetic abnormalities, and it is very often a matter of luck whether those abnormalities lead to one's offspring having genetic problems.
That being so, the problem is not an individual one but a general one, because, as hon. Members have said, we shall confront massive problems over those issues in the next few years, and very shortly. I have discussed some of the implications with Professor Peter Harper and others.
There are two distinct aspects. One is the aspect that impinges immediately on discrimination in the context of the Bill, such as in the place of work. It is unacceptable that we should say that it is legitimate for there to be discrimination against a person because that person has a potential of having a disability at some time—that is, to discriminate against a perfectly healthy person at the moment because something may or may not happen in future.
To make it worse, because many of the rarer conditions are not well understood, a potential employer may read in all types of difficulties in a few years' time that may not be there, because the rate of progress of many conditions varies enormously.
One thinks of people with some of those conditions who have made enormous successes in their lives. One thinks of Sir Charles Evans, who was principal of the University College of North Wales, Bangor, who very nearly reached the summit of Everest in 1953, yet who, for his latter years, was in a wheelchair with MS. If he had been discriminated against because of the condition that he potentially had, it would have been outrageous, and no one was to know the speed at which that condition developed.
Therefore, in the context of employment, it is untenable to hold the opinion that has been held by some Conservative Members in resisting the amendment. I think that that goes along with a whole load of other aspects of the Bill regarding services and other facilities needed by disabled people, but especially employment.
Hon. Members have mentioned another matter—insurance. There, I suspect, we have it, because I am very much aware of a strong lobby in the insurance world that is of the viewpoint that it has the right to use all and any

information available in calculating insurance premiums and liabilities, and that to restrict that lobby from having that information is to cut across the whole profession.
The argument that I would make about that—I would base it on a different premise from the argument that I made regarding employment—is that insurance should be regarded as a spreading out of risk, and if we are approaching a position where the genetic mapping of every individual is potentially known, all those calculations can be made and the whole industry will be turned upside-down. I would prefer that we resist that at the moment, that we take it that there must be an average loading of premium, and that the more difficult, expensive cases must be carried by the rest of us who are lucky enough not to have those problems.

Mr. Batiste: I do not necessarily disagree with what the hon. Gentleman says about insurance, but my understanding of the amendment is that it will not have that effect. If the insurance companies can show that there is an actuarial base for the premiums that they wish to charge, it will simply enable them to identify higher-risk groups and load the premiums even more on to those groups.
The way in which one should approach the matter is to consider whether the documentation should be supplied in the first place, in view of the overwhelming need to get as many people screened as possible in the categories required.

Mr. Wigley: Yes, but the clause and the Bill have nothing to do with the provision of the documentation. We are talking about discrimination—discrimination against people on the basis of their potential disability. I believe that that is an unacceptable way of going about things.
There may need to be some amendment in another place to fine-tune the implications in insurance, although I do not believe that that is necessary. I believe that the approach that must be taken is a broad-based approach by the society in general—by which I mean the society of people who are insuring, accepting the overall swings and roundabouts of risk. However, if there is another approach whereby some safeguards for insurance work need to be built in in another place, so be it.
However, it would be wrong to allow discrimination to be acceptable in the context of employment and all the other contexts that we have examined in the Bill because of those problems. The Government should accept the amendment. If there needs to be some fine tuning after that, so be it. I accept that there will be much more legislation on other aspects of the subject that have far-reaching implications.

Mr. Miller: I shall not repeat the issues with which the Select Committee on Science and Technology is dealing—my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) covered the subject extremely well.
The key issue is whether we should take a neutral view on issues relating to genetic predisposition, a negative view—as clause 1 does—or follow the lead of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) and take a positive view. To my mind, there is only one choice.
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon referred to people minded to discriminate, which is what we must focus on. As the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) said, it is clear that each of us has a genetic predisposition


to something: the problem is that we do not know what it is. The only certainty in life is death. We all have a genetic predisposition to some condition or another, and our knowledge will grow, but that is not what the clause is about.
The clause is clearly about the circumstances in which people discover that they have a genetic predisposition that may result in a shortening of their life or a serious late-onset disease that causes them to be discriminated against. Clearly, such people should not be the subject of discrimination, and I think that the Government would agree with that.
The question is one of definition. A number of clauses refer to issues such as progressive conditions and histories of impairment. They could all be used to incorporate the spirit of what the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon is saying, but they do not get to the nub of the matter in the way that he does.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) made an extremely important point about insurance-related issues. If all Conservative Members joined BUPA and one of them wanted to jump the queue, the only way he could do so would be by creating a super BUPA. The Government might regard that as a sensible market, but if we extend the logic of the point made by the hon. Member for Caernarfon by 10, 15 or 20 years and if the insurance industry operates in the way postulated by the hon. Member for Elmet, there will be no insurance industry. People will have to be grouped and risks will have to be spread, otherwise there will be no insurance industry.
The key reason why we need to ensure that nobody is discriminated against is simply that if there is potential for discrimination much of the research being undertaken within family groups will be restricted. If one member of a family group in which a particular condition is prevalent makes himself available for a test that shows that he has a predisposition that may or may not express itself in years to come, that could, in itself, result in discrimination. If we do not encourage people to participate in family group studies, our knowledge of disease and tragic conditions will be restricted. A positive way to encourage development would be to incorporate the philosophy of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon within the framework of the Bill.

Mr. Hague: We have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate in the middle of our proceedings this evening.
I am concerned that some hon. Members view the Bill as the solution for all discrimination. It is not a general anti-discrimination Bill; it is not even a general health discrimination Bill. Our intention in proposing the Bill is simply to tackle discrimination against disabled people.
As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said, the Bill aims to avoid discrimination against people with disabilities. In meeting that aim, we must carry with us employers, business and the general public. Vagueness and uncertainty will not do. Employers, businesses and individuals need to know who has rights, who can complain to the courts and tribunals and to whom those employers or businesses have duties.
The Government have had a clear policy—that the people we intend to cover are those with a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term

adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. Those are people who are disabled in commonsense terms. There is no question about whether people with sensory impairments are included. The hon. Member for Erdington raised that subject in his speech and we have been over it in Committee. The phrasing of the Bill, and our proceedings in Committee and in the House, show, without doubt, that people with sensory impairments are included in the word "physical" when we use the definition "physical or mental impairment".
We have also ensured that people with progressive conditions are covered from the first point at which they have an effect on day-to-day activities, however slight. We have also ensured that people are covered who have impairments where the effects fluctuate or recur. We have ensured that people with severe disfigurements are covered. All those are people who are commonly accepted as having a disability.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The Minister spoke of those he must try to carry with him on the issue. He did not talk about the organisations of or for disabled people. They are concerned to see changes in the definition that he proposes. I asked him at an earlier stage in the Bill's proceedings if he would meet the Genetic Interest Group. I suggested that it would be rewarding for him as well as highly satisfactory for the group. Is he prepared to meet that group?

Mr. Hague: I met the Genetic Interest Group last week. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) brought its director to see me and we had a valuable discussion. I shall come to the points that hon. Members have made about genetic predisposition in a moment.
Although we are extending protection to a wide range of people, a line has to be drawn about whom the Bill is for. That is not an easy task, as today's debate has clearly shown. The American experience shows that tremendous problems can be caused by involving groups with marginal connections to disability. Such problems include large backlogs of complaints, great employer uncertainty and groups rightly intended to be excluded from the legislation managing to complain by claiming that they have a reputation of having a disability.
We recognise, however, that there is serious concern, which has been voiced this evening by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam), about discrimination against people who have had a disability, but who have recovered. MIND—the National Association for Mental Health—has put the case for people who have recovered from mental illness. Other groups and individuals have made their strong views clear, including my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter. After careful consideration, the Government have accepted that the Bill should confer protection against discrimination on people who have had a disability that meets the Bill's definition.
We cannot, however, accept the amendments because we must consider the implications of the change, not just for the definition but for the Bill as a whole. We will table appropriate amendments in another place and I hope that, on that basis, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon will feel able to withdraw the relevant amendment concerning history of disability.
Amendments Nos. 13 and 17 would bring people with latent conditions and genetic predispositions within the scope of the Bill. I have given the matter a great deal of thought and I had a very useful meeting with the director of the Genetic Interest Group last week. I accept that some serious ethical issues arise from the advances in genetic screening techniques and that there is potential for discrimination—which I strongly oppose—against people with certain genetic predispositions. However, to include people with latent conditions or genetic predispositions in the Bill would open up the legislation to vast numbers of people who are not, and may never be, disabled.
I am advised that the human cell has an estimated 100,000 genes. As we are able to identify, isolate and test for more of those genes—the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste)—it has been estimated that we will all be found to carry a complement of potentially lethal mutations, which is a sobering thought even for this place. In about 10 years' time, the Bill, which is designed to provide protection for disabled people, could cover the entire population of the country.
I understand that the effects of those potentially harmful genes do not always manifest themselves and that many individuals who carry a particular trait will never show any effects of it. I am also advised that the predictive power of genetic testing is, with few exceptions, likely to remain uncertain. No screening test will be 100 per cent. reliable. For example, the well-publicised cystic fibrosis test cannot detect all the mutations; at best, it can be only 80 per cent. reliable and both false positive and false negative results can be expected.
In other words, except in a few well-publicised cases, genetic tests are not as yet a useful indicator of future actual disability. Their inclusion would open up the Bill to large numbers of people who are clearly not, and may never become, disabled.

Dr. Bray: If what the Minister says is correct—and his remarks have great force—would it not be reasonable for the Government to say that, in certain named conditions where the likelihood is more than about 10 per cent., it would be wrong to discriminate? That suggestion is clearly not made in the amendment, but the Minister could say that he will examine the possibility of such a proposal before the Bill goes to another place.

Mr. Hague: With that suggestion, the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) takes us into a whole new area of creating an arbitrary distinction about which there would be further room for debate. I understand the points that he and other hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon, have expressed in that area. However, we cannot wander into a situation whereby, for some reason or another, potentially the entire population could claim protection under the Bill.
I do not believe that the Bill is the right place to address those concerns—which go much wider than issues relating to discrimination, as I think my hon. Friends the Members for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan) and for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) said in interventions. The House will now be aware of the inquiry by the Select Committee on Science and Technology into human genetics. I

understand that the Committee is currently addressing a number of the concerns raised by hon. Members and that it will report later this year. The Government will want to look very carefully at the Select Committee's findings and recommendations before deciding whether specific action is called for. That will provide a valuable opportunity to consider the issue in the round, including the points that have been raised in the debate.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon that the Government do not intend to ignore those issues. The Government's door will be open for further discussions not only about the specific issue that he has raised tonight, but about the wider issues that have been raised as a result of what we know about those matters to date. I think that is the sensible way for the Government and the House to proceed.
To accept all the amendments that have been proposed would change the Bill from a disability Bill into a general health Bill, which would dilute its effect in protecting people who are commonly understood to be disabled. I hope that the whole House will welcome the statement that I have made about including people with a history of a disability in the Bill.
I turn briefly to the Government amendments that are grouped with the amendment which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon. As hon. Members know, the Bill is designed to eliminate discrimination against people with a disability that has a substantial long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activity. We have always intended that the Bill should cover people who are terminally ill and who may not have 12 months to live. However, it became clear in Committee that that might not be the effect. Therefore, in order to avoid any doubt or confusion, I have tabled amendments Nos. 98 and 99, which clearly cover people who have fewer than 12 months to live.
Many of the other amendments are drafting changes, but I particularly draw attention to amendment No. 129, which introduces the term "concentrate" into the list of normal day-to-day activities. It is a very important amendment which ensures that people with certain conditions, such as schizophrenic disorders, will be covered by the Bill.
In addition, we are aware that there is potential for confusion because the Mental Health Act 1983 also uses the term "mental impairment". The Mental Health Act definition is too narrow: it does not cover learning disabilities unless they constitute an impairment associated with abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct; it does not cover mental impairments arising from injuries later in life; and it has no long-term element. As the purposes of the two Acts are quite different, we believe that it will be helpful to make the difference in the definitions apparent. That is why we have tabled amendment No. 127.
The final Government amendment to which I shall refer is amendment No. 132, which makes it clear what is meant by "progressive condition". As I said in Committee, the Bill is about people who have the symptoms and signs of a disability—and it will now be about those who have had them in the past. However, as symptoms are rather subjective, we have decided to adopt the same approach that we used to define a disability and refer to effects on normal day-to-day activities.
This is a very difficult area. We have to draw the line somewhere in the definition and I think that we have drawn it in a sensible place, although the Government are prepared to move the line for people with a history of an actual impairment which meets the terms in which impairment is defined in the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon has expressed legitimate fears. I hope that he will be encouraged by my assurance that the Government's door is open to discuss these matters in the round. We certainly look forward to the report of the Select Committee later this year, which will draw attention to many more of those issues.

Mr. Alan Howarth: With the leave of the House, I shall make some quick observations.
I am grateful to hon. Members who, in some considerable number, have taken part in the debate, which has proved extremely helpful and valuable. I am particularly grateful to the hon. Members who supported me on amendment No. 13—notably, the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), whom I like to think of as my old sparring partner rather than my opponent across the Dispatch Box, and the hon. Members for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) and for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), who made very constructive and helpful speeches.
I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir. G. Shaw) that there is no question of raising unreal hopes and fears of the kind and on the scale that he anticipated. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan) and for Elmet (Mr. Batiste), who have given careful thought to the issues. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet that predisposition to a disorder is not of itself a disability, but we are dealing with the attitudes of those who think that it is. He is worried that the clause might apply to a large number of people; I do not mind that in the least. Legislation dealing with discrimination on the grounds of race or gender quite rightly protects the whole population and, equally, all people should be protected from discrimination on the basis that they are perceived to be disabled.
The evil against which we seek to act is discrimination by ignorant and prejudiced people. My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet cited Professor Modell and was worried that the amendment might entail positive discrimination, but it would not. It would not entail the conferring of particular privileges on a particular section of the population—that is not what I am arguing for.
7.30 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet was worried that we might be making a piecemeal judgment, acting somewhat impetuously to deal with one small part of a much larger complex of problems. I acknowledge that, but we have a clearly defined evil that is made more likely—unintentionally, of course—by the Bill, and my amendment proposes a remedy for that.
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for enabling me to meet him and Mr. Alastair Kent, the director of the Genetic Interest Group. I welcome the commitment that he was able to make about including in the protection of the Bill those who have a history of disability. That is a most constructive and important advance, and I am sure that the whole House appreciates

it. I am sorry, however, that he was not able to offer a more positive response to my amendment on the particular issue that it addresses, because he has recognised—for which I am grateful—that there are serious ethical issues and that we risk exposing people who suffer from latent conditions and genetic predispositions to unacceptable discrimination.
My hon. Friend the Minister said how strongly he would oppose such discrimination. He is worried, however, that my amendment would open up the situation too widely. I have indicated why that is not an anxiety for me, but I recognise that, if it is a problem for the Government, it is worth looking again at drafting an amendment that might remove that unfortunate effect from the Bill. I will, along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Motherwell, South and with the Genetic Interest Group, look to see whether it would be possible to narrow the compass and the effect of the amendment to an extent. My hon. Friend the Minister suggested that that might not be a suitable approach, but it would be analogous to the approach that the Government have adopted in the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Act, where specified medical conditions exempt people from having to undergo the medical test. We are therefore not in entirely uncharted territory, for all the differences between the two situations.
I still maintain that there is a problem and that it is important to address it within the proposed legislation. I welcome the constructive willingness of my hon. Friend the Minister to look seriously at these issues, but I do not think that it will be satisfactory to leave it to subsequent legislation. I hope therefore that it will be possible for all concerned to look again at the drafting of an amendment that might meet my hon. Friend's genuine concerns, and that a new amendment will be tabled in another place. I hope that the Government will be able to favour it.
With the leave of the House, I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 13.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): We are dealing with amendment No. 12, so there is no need to seek to withdraw amendment No. 13, because it has not, technically, been moved.

Mr. Howarth: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1

PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTING SECTION 1

Amendments made: No. 98, in page 28, line 16, leave out 'or'.

No. 99, in page 28, line 18, after 'months', insert '; or
(c) it can reasonably be expected to last for the rest of the life of the person affected'.

No. 100, in line 35, leave out from 'having' to end of line 36 and insert 'that effect'.

No. 128, in line 40, after 'affect' insert
`the ability of the person concerned to carry out'.

No. 129, in page 29, line 3, after `to' insert `concentrate,'.

No. 130, in line 7, after 'affect' insert
`the ability of the person concerned to carry out'.

No. 131, in line 10, after 'affect' insert
`the ability of the person concerned to carry out'.

No. 132, in page 30, line 2, leave out from 'Where' to end of line 13 and insert '—

(a) a person has a progressive condition (such as cancer, multiple sclerosis or muscular dystrophy),
(b) as a result of that condition, he has an impairment which has (or had) an effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, but
(c) that effect is not (or was not) a substantial adverse effect, he shall be taken to have an impairment which has such a substantial adverse effect if the condition is expected to result in his having such an impairment.'.

No. 133, in line 14, leave out 'Act' and insert `paragraph':—[Mr. Hague.]

Clause 5

CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH LESS FAVOURABLE TREATMENT IS JUSTIFIED

Amendments made: No. 71, in page 3, line 30, leave out 'be' and insert 'have been'.

No. 72, in line 31, after 'believe' insert
`, at the time of the treatment in question,'.—[Mr. Paice.]

Clause 6

DUTY OF EMPLOYER TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS

Amendments made: No. 120, in page 4, line 14, at end insert—
'( ) The following are examples of steps which an employer may have to take in relation to a disabled person in order to comply with section (1)—

(a) making adjustments to premises;
(b) allocating some of the disabled person's duties to another person;
(c) transferring him to fill an existing vacancy;
(d) altering his working hours;
(e) assigning him to a different place of work;
(f) allowing him to be absent during working hours for rehabilitation, assessment or treatment;
(g) giving him, or arranging for him to be given, training;
(h) acquiring or modifying equipment;
(i) modifying instructions or reference manuals;
(j) modifying procedures for testing or assessment;
(k) providing a reader or interpreter;
(l) providing supervision.'.

No. 121, leave out lines 29 to 35.—[Mr. Paice.]

Clause 7

EXEMPTION FOR SMALL BUSINESSES

Amendment made: No. 122, in page 5, line 13, leave out from 'substituting' to end of line 14 and insert
`a different number (not greater than 20) for the number for the time being specified there.'.—[Mr. Paice.]

Mr. Wigley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You are going through the amendments at a rate of knots, but I expected the Government to explain some of them. Some of them are purely technical, but amendment No. 120 is substantial and has gone through on the nod without any explanation. That is an unsatisfactory way of dealing with business.

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is, of course, open to any hon. Member to speak, provided the amendment does not

fall under the category of amendments that are called formally, which means that it will already have been put with others.

Clause 8

ENFORCEMENT, REMEDIES AND PROCEDURE

Amendment made: No. 123, in page 5, line 36, leave out
`in the case of damages'
and insert
`to the calculation of damages in claims in tort or (in Scotland) in reparation'.—[Mr. Paice.]

Clause 10

CHARITIES AND SUPPORT FOR PARTICULAR GROUPS OF PERSONS

Amendment made: No. 73, in page 7, line 26, leave out `any' and insert `such'.—[Mr. Paice.]

Clause 11

ADVERTISEMENTS SUGGESTING THAT EMPLOYERS WILL DISCRIMINATE AGAINST DISABLED PERSONS

Amendment made: No. 74, in page 8, line 7, leave out from 'employer' to 'and' in line 8 and insert
`has advertised the employment (whether before or after the disabled person applied for it)'.—[Mr. Paice.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) sure that he does not wish to speak to amendment No. 74?

Mr. Wigley: No, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Clause 12

DISCRIMINATION IN RELATION TO GOODS, FACILITIES AND SERVICES

Amendment made: No. 75, in page 8, line 40, leave out `Part' and insert
`section and sections 13, 14 and 15'.—[Mr. Hague.]

Mr. Wigley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I register my dissatisfaction at the fact that an important group of amendments on the needs of carers has been dropped at this stage? Many hon. Members who did not serve on the Committee have been extensively lobbied on the subject and would have liked an opportunity to debate the subject.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I share my hon. Friend's frustration, but it is fair to point out that these amendments were tabled before the Carers (Recognition and Services) Bill, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks), was given a Second Reading.

Amendments made: No. 76 in page 9, line 2, leave out `Part applies' and insert
`section and sections 13, 14 and 15 apply'.

No. 77, in page 9, line 4, at end insert—
'( ) access to and use of means of communication;
( ) access to and use of information services;'.

No. 78, in line 18, leave out 'Part does' and insert
`section and sections 13, 14 and 15 do'.—[Mr. Hague.]

Clause 13

MEANING OF "DISCRIMINATION"

Amendments made: No. 79, in page 9, line 42, leave out 'this Part' and insert 'section 12'.

No. 80, in page 10, line 6, leave out from 'services' to `under' and insert
`has failed to comply with any duty imposed on him by or'.—[Mr. Hague.]

Clause 14

CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH LESS FAVOURABLE TREATMENT IS JUSTIFIED

Amendment proposed: No. 81, in page 10, leave out lines 35 to 37 and insert—
'(ii) the disabled person is incapable of entering into an enforceable agreement, or of giving an informed consent, and for that reason the treatment is reasonable in that case;'.—[Mr. Hague.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 85.

Mr. Wigley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain the precise implications of amendment No. 81.

Mr. Hague: I agreed in Committee to consider paragraph (ii) in the light of the Law Commission's recent report on incapacity and to reconsider the situation. The amendment will mean that a service provider will still be allowed to discriminate justifiably against someone if it is not able to contract, but only if it is reasonable to do so within the circumstances of the case.
Let me illustrate that further. There are some circumstances in which a service provider is very unlikely reasonably to think that a person does not have the ability to contract and does not understand the principles behind a particular transaction—for example, when someone is buying a newspaper or a Mars bar from a corner shop. The circumstances are different when someone enters a car showroom and attempts to buy an expensive luxury car. In such a case, when there is a major purchase or credit sale involved, if the service provider has justifiable reasons to think that the disabled customer is incapable of entering into an enforceable agreement or giving an informed consent, he will be entitled not to provide the goods or services. We debated this matter in Committee and I made the case for it in general terms.
The situation, therefore, turns on the individual facts of each case. The amendment deals with that point and would remove the possibility of unscrupulous service providers exploiting this paragraph of the clause as a loophole. A provider will not be able to say that because someone could not enter into an enforceable agreement to buy an expensive car he will not sell that person a newspaper either. It will depend on the particular circumstances. I hope that the amendment will be warmly welcomed.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 82, in page 11, line 2, leave out `this Part' and insert 'section 13'.—[Mr. Hague.]

Clause 15

DUTY OF PROVIDERS OF SERVICES TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS

Amendment made: No. 83, in page 12, line 2, at end insert—
`( ) as to what is to be included within the meaning of "practice, policy or procedure";
( ) as to what is not to be included within the meaning of that expression;'.—[Mr. Hague.]

Clause 17

EXEMPTION FOR SMALL DWELLINGS

Amendment made: No. 84, in page 13, leave out lines 41 to 44 and insert—
`(c) the shared accommodation is not storage accommodation or a means of access; and'.—[Mr. Hague.]

Clause 19

CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH LESS FAVOURABLE TREATMENT IN RELATION TO PREMISES IS JUSTIFIED

Amendment made: No. 85, in page 15, leave out lines 1 to 3 and insert—
'(ii) the disabled person is incapable of entering into an enforceable agreement, or of giving an informed consent, and for that reason the treatment is reasonable in that case;'.—[Mr. Hague.]

Clause 21

VALIDITY AND REVISION OF CERTAIN AGREEMENTS

Amendment made: No. 86, in page 15, line 34, after `of insert 'goods, facilities or'.—[Mr. Hague.]

Clause 24

CODES OF PRACTICE PREPARED BY THE COUNCIL

Amendment made: No. 87, in page 18, line 8, after `section' insert 'and section 25'.—[Mr. Hague.]

Clause 25

FURTHER PROVISION ABOUT CODES ISSUED UNDER SECTION 24

Amendments made: No. 88, in page 18, leave out lines 12 and 13.

No. 89, in page 18, leave out from line 42 to line 2 on page 19.—[Mr. Hague.]

Clause 26

CODES OF PRACTICE PREPARED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE

Amendment made: No. 90, in page 19, line 42, after `section' insert 'and section 27'.—[Mr. Hague.]

Clause 27

FURTHER PROVISION ABOUT CODES ISSUED UNDER SECTION 26

Amendment made: No. 91, in page 20, leave out lines 22 and 23.—[Mr. Hague.]

Clause 29

HELP FOR PERSONS SUFFERING DISCRIMINATION

Amendments made: No. 92, in page 21, line 28, leave out 'the proceedings' and insert
`any proceedings under Part II'.

No. 93, in page 21, line 29, after 'tribunal' insert 'in any such proceedings'.—[Mr. Hague.]

Clause 32

STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND NATIONAL SECURITY ETC.

Amendments made: No. 94, in page 22, line 37, leave out 'under' and insert 'in pursuance of'.

No. 95, in page 22, line 38, leave out first 'under' and insert 'in pursuance of'.—[Mr. Hague.]

Clause 35

APPLICATION TO CROWN ETC.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Paice): I beg to move amendment No. 124, in page 24, line 33, after `(2)' insert `Subject to subsection (4A)'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 125 and 126.

Mr. Paice: Hon. Members will recall that in the White Paper published in January, which was entitled "Ending Discrimination Against Disabled People", we said that we would consider narrowly defined exceptions for positions with unusually demanding all-round requirements for fitness and stamina. Hon. Members will see from the amendments that they cover the armed forces, firefighters, prison officers and Ministry of Defence police, but they may wonder why there is no mention of ordinary police officers. The answer is that they clearly fall outside the Bill's provisions in any case, and mentioning them would simply cause confusion. They are not covered by part II of the Bill because they do not have contracts of service and, as they are not Crown servants, nor are they caught by the special provisions of clause 35.
In common with civilian police forces, members of the MOD police are sworn and attested police officers. All applicants must be able to meet prescribed medical standards relative to police duties including, of course, the carriage of arms. In addition to normal police duties within MOD establishments, MOD police officers undertake specialist duties such as personnel protection, escorting nuclear convoys and acting as marine escorts to Royal Navy submarines in naval ports. Of course, I accept that some disabled people—for example, those with severe disfigurement whom we have included within the definition—may be perfectly capable of doing these jobs. Such candidates will still be able to enter these occupations.
7.45 pm
The point, however, is that mental and physical capacity is a critical aspect of the recruitment process, and many people are rejected on the grounds of lack of fitness. Indeed, a senior Army officer is recently reported to have criticised the low level of fitness of many applicants. To be unfit is not the same thing as being disabled under our definition, but it must be clear that all judgments about the physical and mental capacity of recruits are for the recruiting authorities to make.

Mr. Wigley: How would the Minister distinguish between the work done by the armed services, firefighters and prison officers and that done by private companies

such as Securicor? Will he allow Securicor to have the same derogation from the Bill, or will the provision apply only to people working in the public sector?

Mr. Paice: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall deal with that point but, basically, the answer is that he need have no real fears—assuming that he is taking the stance that I believe him to be taking.
It would not be right for tribunals to be involved in assessing such matters where public protection is involved because that would mean that they would effectively be second-guessing and, indeed, in some cases, perhaps overruling the recruitment officers in respect of the determination whether or not someone was fit. Of course, I recognise that it is a hard decision but I believe that the groups listed should be exempted, and I feel confident that employers in other spheres will not feel that they are unreasonable exemptions.
I also have to point out to the House that, although we publicised our intention to make exemptions in our White Paper, I am not aware of any representations from disability organisations questioning that intention.
Hon. Members may ask why we do not simply use the power in the Bill as drafted which allows regulations to be made to prescribe the meaning of employment. First—I hope this answers the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley)—it is right that we should make our intentions absolutely clear and place these specific occupations in the Bill. Secondly, I am advised by our legal advisers that the power afforded in clause 38 would not allow us to exempt further whole categories of occupations so the House need have no fear of this being the thin edge of the wedge. It would, however, allow us to be more specific about certain forms of employment, which may well be useful for the purpose of clarity.
During yesterday's debate on small firms, the hon. Member for Caernarfon, among others, raised the question of seasonal workers. It may well be that the power in clause 38 will allow us to deal with that issue. Since the publication of the White Paper, we have clearly considered carefully the matter of exemptions, and the group of amendments is the outcome. I hope that it is clear to the House that it is a carefully thought out and justifiable but restricted list of narrowly drawn categories which, I hope, will meet with the House's approval. I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Tom Clarke: The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) spoke for many Opposition Members and others when he expressed his worries. This is a serious matter and it is a considerable departure from the spirit of the debate so far. Some people might say that I am introducing contention for the sake of it, but I do so because there is a need for it.
The Government had not tabled these amendments until the end of our sittings last week. They claim that their approach to every aspect of this topic is based on consultation and on the response of the individuals involved, but there can be very little ground for suggesting that these amendments come into that category. The House has been rushed without explanation. The Minister, even in the few words that he has spoken on the amendments, has inadequately approached serious matters affecting firefighters, people in the Prison Service, and those in the armed services. The July consultation document contained nothing about the fire, prison or armed services. The Government are inviting hon.


Members to agree to the blanket exclusion of those categories, and we are clearly entitled to much more explanation than we have received.
Having heard the Minister, I still do not know why those issues were not mentioned in the consultation document, the White Paper or the Bill, and why they were not mentioned in Committee. Out of the blue, as we rush through the final hours of this important measure, the House is simply asked without explanation to agree to the amendments. That runs counter to the approach of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I share the frustration of the hon. Member for Caernarfon that many of the issues have not been fully debated. That applies in relation to amendment No. 124.
We know that 37 operational firefighters were ruled as being unfit because they were insulin-dependent diabetics. We must ask whether the amendment means that those firefighters would not be covered. They rightly and successfully challenged their employers, saying that they were unreasonable, and the courts ruled in their favour. Are we being told that new legislation would mean that such people would be excluded, despite all the information that we have, all the examination of their cases, and all the experience of those men? Their cases have been shown to be acceptable to the courts, but apparently they are not acceptable to the Government. The Minister is asking us to accept his view in the absence of views from people who represent the firefighters, and indeed the firefighters themselves. That is not acceptable to the Opposition.
We believe that serving prison officers, firefighters and service men and women will not have the right to equal treatment, which we have embraced elsewhere, and which they seek in terms of re-employment after sustaining injuries in the course of their duties. For example, a building worker who damages his spine by falling off a ladder will rightly be entitled to equal treatment in seeking transfer to another post, but a firefighter with similar experience will not be entitled to that.
In prisons, a distinction exists—the Minister dealt with this by sleight of hand—between the private and public sectors. He is seeking to introduce a charter for Group 4. That is not the way to do it. I worry about what will happen if that principle is extended and introduced in another place. The Government have had to face the embarrassment over Crown immunity and awards to pregnant women officers. The matter should be dealt with more formally than has happened tonight.
The Bill's employment provisions are weak enough without the Government demanding even more rights for themselves. There is no say in what might happen in another place. No consultation has taken place. We do not know the views of the people concerned. For those reasons, among others, I am not in favour of the Government amendments and I invite the House to reject them.

Mr. Colin Pickthall: The amendment refers to members of the fire service. Until the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) brought it up last evening, I did not realise that I was disabled, or that I would be if I were a firefighter. Were I to contract insulin-dependent diabetes, I would be instantly removed from active service as a firefighter. At best, I would be found work in an office; at worst, I would become unemployed.
I have no idea whether being an insulin-dependent diabetic affects prison officers or members of the Ministry of Defence police. I doubt it. I recognise the Minister's difficulty in trying not to extend the Bill's provisions to cover every health problem in the universe, but the key point is that he did not refer specifically to diabetes in defining the areas to be included in the disability provision.
Diabetes is a curious condition. It does not disable, but it is counted by the fire service and by licensing authorities as though it does. It can lead to disability, but, for the most part, diabetics who are well balanced in their diabetes have a better diet. They drink and eat better things. They eat and drink less. They are generally fitter and their blood, heart and eyes are regularly checked. They are more likely to be capable of serving the public as firefighters—or whatever the service might be—than someone who does not undergo such checks and who is careless of his health patterns.
It disturbs me intensely that we have not cleared up that matter in the Bill. I hope that it will be reconsidered. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon did us a service yesterday by opening up the issue, which we never even considered in Committee.

Mr. Paice: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I should like to say that the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) suggested that the Government had somehow been unjust in tabling the amendments late. I apologise to him that we tabled them late, but I felt it was right that the House should have a chance to debate them. I shall be open with the hon. Gentleman. We were planning to introduce the amendments in the other place, but we decided that it would be wrong to do so. Our decision was made after careful deliberation, as I said in my opening remarks. That is why we felt that it was right and proper, even at this late stage, to table the amendments. If changes occur in the House of Lords—I am not prejudging the issue, but the hon. Gentleman said that he did not know what would happen there—the amendments will come back to this House for further debate. However, we believed that it was right to deal with the matter tonight.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that we had not consulted on the subject. The statement in the White Paper is clear. It specifically said in paragraph 3.9 that the new right
will cover the public and private sectors, although the Government is considering certain narrowly-defined exceptions for positions with unusually demanding all-round requirements for fitness and stamina.
As I said in my opening remarks, I am not aware of any representations or questions in relation to who might be included—not that it would take a great deal of forethought to work out who might be included.
The hon. Member for Monklands, West referred to rushing through the final hours. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) also questioned the haste with which matters were proceeding. If he is concerned about the rush through the final stages of the Bill, the hon. Member for Monklands, West should discuss that with his hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie). We were trying to accommodate the wishes of the hon. Gentleman and his party. I apologise to the House for the late tabling of the amendments, but it was right that they


should be proposed at this stage, and that the House should have a chance to consider them. I hope that the House will approve them.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Madam Deputy Speaker—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will need the leave of the House to speak again.

Mr. Clarke: I was about to ask for it, Madam Deputy Speaker. Your perspicacity never ceases to amaze me.
With the leave of the House, I shall respond to the Minister. His first speech was marginally better than his second—and his first speech was awful. He quoted some extremely vague comments from the White Paper and, intelligent though firefighters are, well informed though prison officers are, and well educated as the people in the other services are—Group 4 is especially well informed—I cannot help believing that it will have escaped their notice that he was talking about them.

8 pm

Mr. Paice: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I shall give way to the Minister, although I hope that he will not take too long.

Mr. Paice: I certainly shall not. If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned perhaps he will tell the House why since the White Paper was published he has not taken the opportunity to find out precisely which groups the Government were thinking of excluding.

Mr. Clarke: We spent weeks and weeks in Committee seeking precisely that information. If the Minister re-examines his speech he will find that he was distinctly unhelpful and did not encourage us to get down to the details.
I shall briefly give my reasons for asking the House to divide on the issue. First, the Government have been vague. Secondly, they have been sneaky. Thirdly, and most importantly, I do not believe that we should send to another place something that the Lords will think that the House of Commons has endorsed after full consideration. I do not believe that that would be the will of the House. It is right to make it clear to the other place that the Government rushed the matter through and we have not considered it in detail.
Those details have an overwhelming potential importance for those concerned, so for that reason and for the sake of the reputation of the House as well as in the interests of the firefighters and the people in the Prison Service and other services, I ask the House to support us in opposing the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 299, Noes 270.

Division No.118]
[8.01 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Arbuthnot, James


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Alexander, Richard
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Ashby, David


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Atkins, Robert


Amess, David
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)


Ancram, Michael
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)





Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Fishburn, Dudley


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Forman, Nigel


Baldry, Tony
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Forth, Eric


Batiste, Spencer
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bellingham, Henry
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bendall, Vivian
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Beresford, Sir Paul
French, Douglas


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fry, Sir Peter


Booth, Hartley
Gale, Roger


Boswell, Tim
Gallie, Phil


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gardiner, Sir George


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Garnier, Edward


Bowis, John
Gill, Christopher


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gillan, Cheryl


Brandreth, Gyles
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Brazier, Julian
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bright, Sir Graham
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gorst, Sir John


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Budgen, Nicholas
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Burns, Simon
Hague, William


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Butcher, John
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butler, Peter
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Butterfill, John
Hannam, Sir John


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Harris, David


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carrington, Matthew
Hawkins, Nick


Carttiss, Michael
Hawksley, Warren


Cash, William
Heald, Oliver


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Churchill, Mr
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clappison, James
Hendry, Charles


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hicks, Robert


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Coe, Sebastian
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Colvin, Michael
Horam, John


Congdon, David
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Conway, Derek
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Couchman, James
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Cran, James
Hunter, Andrew


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jack, Michael


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jenkin, Bernard


Day, Stephen
Jessel, Toby


Devlin, Tim
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Dover, Den
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Duncan, Alan
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Key, Robert


Dunn, Bob
King, Rt Hon Tom


Durant, Sir Anthony
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dykes, Hugh
Knapman, Roger


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Elletson, Harold
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Knox, Sir David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evennett, David
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Faber, David
Legg, Barry


Fabricant, Michael
Leigh, Edward


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)






Lidington, David
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lightbown, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Luff, Peter
Sims, Roger


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Skeet, Sir Trevor


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


MacKay, Andrew
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maclean, David
Soames, Nicholas


McLoughlin, Patrick
Speed, Sir Keith


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Spencer, Sir Derek


Madel, Sir David
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Major, Rt Hon John
Spink, Dr Robert


Malone, Gerald
Spring, Richard


Mans, Keith
Sproat, Iain


Marland, Paul
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Marlow, Tony
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Steen, Anthony


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stephen, Michael


Mates, Michael
Stern, Michael


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Stewart, Allan


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Streeter, Gary


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Sumberg, David


Merchant, Piers
Sweeney, Walter


Mills, Iain
Sykes, John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Moate, Sir Roger
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Monro, Sir Hector
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Thomason, Roy


Nelson, Anthony
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thurnham, Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Tracey, Richard


Norris, Steve
Tredinnick, David


Oppenheim, Phillip
Trend, Michael


Ottaway, Richard
Trotter, Neville


Page, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Paice, James
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Viggers, Peter


Patten, Rt Hon John
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Walden, George


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Pickles, Eric
Waller, Gary


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Ward, John



Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Powell, William (Corby)
Watts, John


Rathbone, Tim
Wells, Bowen


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Whitney, Ray


Richards, Rod
Whittingdale, John


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Widdecombe, Ann


Robathan, Andrew
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Willetts, David


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wilshire, David


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Wolfson, Mark


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Wood, Timothy


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Yeo, Tim


Sackville, Tom
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy



Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shaw, David (Dover)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Mr. Michael Bates.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Alton, David


Adams, Mrs Irene
Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)


Ainger, Nick
Armstrong, Hilary


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Ashton, Joe


Allen, Graham
Austin-Walker, John





Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Barnes, Harry
Foster, Don (Bath)


Barron, Kevin
Foulkes, George


Bayley, Hugh
Fraser, John


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Fyfe, Maria


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Galbraith, Sam


Bell, Stuart
Galloway, George


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Gapes, Mike


Bennett, Andrew F
Garrett, John


Benton, Joe
George, Bruce


Bermingham, Gerald
Gerrard, Neil


Berry, Roger
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Betts, Clive
Godman, Dr Norman A


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Godsiff, Roger


Blunkett, David
Graham, Thomas


Boateng, Paul
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bradley, Keith
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Grocott, Bruce


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Gunnell, John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hain, Peter


Burden, Richard
Hall, Mike


Byers, Stephen
Hanson, David


Callaghan, Jim
Hardy, Peter


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Harvey, Nick


Campbell-Savours, D N
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Canavan, Dennis
Henderson, Doug


Cann, Jamie
Heppell, John


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Chidgey, David
Hinchliffe, David


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hodge, Margaret


Church, Judith
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Home Robertson, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hood, Jimmy


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clelland, David
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Coffey, Ann
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cohen, Harry
Hoyle, Doug


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Corston, Jean
Hutton, John


Cox, Tom
Illsley, Eric


Cummings, John
Ingram, Adam


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Janner, Greville


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Dafis, Cynog
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Darling, Alistair
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jowell, Tessa


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Keen, Alan


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Denham, John
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Dewar, Donald
Khabra, Piara S


Dixon, Don
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dobson, Frank
Kirkwood, Archy


Donohoe, Brian H
Lewis, Terry


Dowd, Jim
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Litherland, Robert


Eagle, Ms Angela
Livingstone, Ken


Eastham, Ken
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Enright, Derek
Llwyd, Elfyn


Etherington, Bill
Loyden, Eddie


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
McAvoy, Thomas


Fatchett, Derek
McCartney, Ian


Faulds, Andrew
McCrea, The Reverend William


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Macdonald, Calum


Fisher, Mark
McFall, John


Flynn, Paul
McKelvey, William


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Mackinlay, Andrew






McLeish, Henry
Rogers, Allan


Maclennan, Robert
Rooker, Jeff


McMaster, Gordon
Rooney, Terry


McNamara, Kevin
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


MacShane, Denis
Rowlands, Ted


McWilliam, John
Ruddock, Joan


Madden, Max
Salmond, Alex


Maddock, Diana
Sedgemore, Brian


Mandelson, Peter
Sheerman, Barry


Marek, Dr John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Short, Clare


Martlew, Eric
Simpson, Alan


Maxton, John
Skinner, Dennis


Meacher, Michael
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Meale, Alan
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Michael, Alun
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Snape, Peter


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Soley, Clive


Milburn, Alan
Spearing, Nigel


Miller, Andrew
Spellar, John


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Morgan, Rhodri
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Morley, Elliot
Stevenson, George


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Stott, Roger


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Straw, Jack


Mowlam, Marjorie
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mullin, Chris
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Murphy, Paul
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Timms, Stephen


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Tipping, Paddy


O'Hara, Edward
Touhig, Don


Olner, Bill
Tyler, Paul


O'Neill, Martin
Vaz, Keith


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Parry, Robert
Wallace, James


Pearson, Ian
Walley, Joan


Pendry, Tom
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Pickthall, Colin
Wareing, Robert N


Pike, Peter L
Watson, Mike


Pope, Greg
Welsh, Andrew


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wicks, Malcolm


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wigley, Dafydd


Primarolo, Dawn
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Radice, Giles
Wilson, Brian


Randall, Stuart
Wise, Audrey


Raynsford, Nick
Worthington, Tony


Redmond, Martin
Wray, Jimmy


Reid, Dr John
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Rendel, David



Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Tellers for the Noes:


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Mr. George Mudie and


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Mr. Dennis Turner.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 125, in page 25, line 2, at end insert—
'(4A) Part II does not apply to service—

(a) as a member of the Ministry of Defence Police; or
(b) as a prison officer.

(4B) Part II does not apply to service as a member of a fire brigade who is or may be required by his terms of service to engage in fire fighting.
(4C) It is hereby declared (for the avoidance of doubt) that Part II does not apply to service in any of the naval, military or air forces of the Crown.'.

No. 126, in line 7, at end insert—
' "fire brigade" means a fire brigade maintained in pursuance of the Fire Services Act 1947;

Ministry of Defence Police" means the force established under section 1 of the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987;
prison officer" means a person who is a prison officer within the meaning of section 127 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, apart from those who are—

(a) custody officers within the meaning of Part I of the Act of 1994; or
(b) prisoner custody officers within the meaning of Part IV of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 or Chapter II or III of Part VIII of the Act of 1994;'.—[Mr. Hague.]

Clause 38

INTERPRETATION

Amendments made: No. 96, in page 26, line 3, leave out from 'means' to 'a person' in line 4.

No. 97, leave out lines 7 and 8.

No. 127, in line 16, at end insert—
' "mental impairment" does not have the same meaning as in the Mental Health Act 1983 but the fact that an impairment would be a mental impairment for the purposes of that Act does not prevent it from being a mental impairment for the purposes of this Act;'.—[Mr. Hague.]

Schedule 2

ENFORCEMENT AND PROCEDURE

Amendment made: No. 101, in page 31, line 45, leave out 'conciliation officer' and insert
`person appointed in connection with arrangements under section 22'.—[Mr. Hague.]

Schedule 4

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendment made: No. 134, in page 34, line 24, at end insert—
`. In section 136(1) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 (appeals to Employment Appeal Tribunal), at the end insert—
(ff) the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.".'.—[Mr. Hague.]

Schedule 6

MODIFICATIONS OF THIS ACT IN ITS APPLICATION TO NORTHERN IRELAND

Amendments made: No. 102, in page 36, line 1, after '2(5)', insert
'for "him" substitute "it" and'.

No. 103, in line 35, leave out '1989' and insert '1986'.

No. 104, in line 40, at end insert—
`. In section 16(4) and (6) omit "or (in Scotland) the subject of'.'.

No. 105, in page 38, leave out lines 3 to 5.

No. 106, in page 40, leave out lines 1 to 3.

No. 107, in page 43, line 17, leave out 'and'.

No. 108, in line 18, at end insert
`and subsections (3) and (4) below'.

No. 109, in line 28, leave out 'Secretary' and insert `the Secretary'.

No. 110, in page 44, line 25, at end insert
`and in paragraph 3(7) for "his" substitute "its".'.

No. 111, in page 45, line 10, at end insert—
`(c) in the definition of "relevant compromise contract" for "or Article" substitute "Article" and at the end insert "or section 9(2) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995".'.

No. 112, leave out line 31.

No. 113, leave out line 35.—[Mr. Hague.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Hague: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
At this point we should pause for a second and raise our eyes from the level of detail that we have debated in Committee and on Report and remind ourselves of several things about the Disability Discrimination Bill. It is a landmark Bill. It is the only comprehensive Bill for disabled people ever introduced by a British Government. It will mark the United Kingdom out as one of the world leaders and the leader in Europe in the move towards comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation for disabled people. It is a profound measure with significant implications for every part of the economy.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Before the Minister awards himself an Oscar, will he satisfy the House that he is referring to the Government's Disability Discrimination Bill?

Mr. Hague: I am satisfied, and the House will be satisfied, that I am referring to the Disability Discrimination Bill. It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman interrupted me at that point because I was about to be generous to many people on the Opposition Benches as well as to many of my hon. Friends. I acknowledge that the Bill embodies a goal for which many people have worked tirelessly over the years. They include hon. Members on both sides of the House, many of whom are present in the Chamber tonight, as well as campaigners outside the House and many disabled people.
We owe it to all the people who have campaigned for such legislation to get it right. That means producing legislation that wins the support and active co-operation of all employers and service providers who must deliver the benefits that we want to flow from it. I also pay tribute to the constructive approach that has been adopted by hon. Members on both sides of the House in Committee and on Report. I am convinced and I think that it is clear that the points that have divided the House have been of far less significance than some basic principles that now unite it.
I also pay tribute to the consideration of detail that has gone on behind the scenes. Organisations of and for disabled people and many other groups have helped us to improve the Bill. The improvements that we have seen effected, particularly on Report, are due in no small way to their labours as well as to the efforts of hon. Members.
It is all too easy for ambitious law to become ambiguous law. Many hon. Members said during our debates that they did not want the legislation to be a beanfeast for lawyers. I certainly agree with that. We must be particularly careful in matters of disability discrimination, in which there could easily be far more uncertainty than in the sex and race legislation dealt with in the past. Therefore, the Government's guiding principle has been to achieve certainty wherever possible so that employers and service providers know what is meant by disability and we do not have a vague concept that might cover all kinds of people who never have been or may never be disabled.
We want to achieve certainty so that employers and service providers know what they have to do to provide an accessible environment for disabled people. The Bill has the potential to affect the employers of many thousands of disabled employees in all manner of jobs and occupations. It has the potential to affect about 750,000 businesses, from broadcasting and banking to greengrocers and newsagents. That is why we have made sure that the legislation is sufficiently flexible to be applied right across the board and why we have had the good sense to allow that matters such as education and transport deserve to be treated in a different way. I am pleased that we have been able to make or plan to make in another place additional provisions on those matters.
We want to achieve certainty so that disabled people know how to obtain redress if employers and service providers fall short of the standards expected; hence, we want to have a national network of advice points, whether placing, assessment and counselling teams or citizens advice bureaux, so that disabled people have somewhere local and amenable to which they can turn when they need help. We have made statutory provision for codes of practice and guidance so that those who provide advice and support know what is reasonable in a given set of circumstances.
While we have ensured that the Bill abides by those principles, the Government have been prepared to listen and to make sensible adjustments. In our debates on amendment No. 12, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), earlier today, we accepted that we should widen the definition of disability to include those with a history of disability. We have accepted that the small employers' exemption should be reviewed for effectiveness and that we should remove the power to increase the number of employers exempted.
We have accepted that the Government's policy of requiring transport to be made accessible to disabled people on a replacement basis in the future should be, for the sake of certainty, written into the Bill. We have included measures against discrimination in the sale and letting of property. We have undertaken to look again at a variety of other matters. Our approach of flexibility founded on solid principles is reflected in the Bill. I believe that it is the right approach to this difficult and complicated subject and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Tom Clarke: We have had some interesting debates in the past two days. I am sure that the Minister shares my view that the public awareness of the debates has been interesting. As we have sat here, I have received note after note inviting me to raise issues which I would love to raise, but which, alas, time does not allow me to do. I am sure that the Minister has had the same experience and that his electorate has followed our proceedings.
Only two minutes ago I was requested in neat writing, better than mine, to raise on Third Reading the issue of access to work and the possible impact of introducing reasonable accommodation. That was a specific reference which a member of the public attached to Government amendment No. 120. So I hope that in our democratic processes members of the public will not think that we have not taken their views on board. Alas, because of the limited time—we could have debated the matter for a


whole week, if not more, so perhaps we should have a party conference on disability—we could not take all the points on board.
I thank the Minister for his unfailing courtesy; I shall perhaps return to that later. It has been the ambition of many people inside and outside the House to make 1995 the year of disabled people's rights. The Bill is not adequate to justify that title, but we remain hopeful that progress can be made. The Government have been forced to tear up their "exemptions"—I use the word in the Bill—for education and transport vehicles. We count that as progress on two of the most objectionable features of the Government's original proposals.
The Government have promised to move new clauses in another place that will do something to improve the position of disabled pupils and students in education and will apply the right of access to public transport by road and rail. We shall wait to see the contents before we pass final judgment, but the fact that Ministers have abandoned the appalling exemptions—to use their words and the words in the Bill—is a major victory for disabled people. I congratulate disabled people and organisations of and for disabled people on those achievements.
Ministers have also conceded a little ground on the exemption of small firms by removing the option to extend that exemption to firms with 20 or more employees. However, what they have given with one hand they have taken away with the other by introducing at the very end of our proceedings today a new employment exemption for particular services, which we have only just discussed, and discussed inadequately. Ministers have given ground in a number of areas in response to the positive arguments that my hon. Friends and others have raised during the past 10 weeks. Their concessions do not do enough to transform the Bill into the kind of comprehensive measure which we would have liked to see, but they give us some encouragement that further improvements will be possible.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said, we are pleased that the Government have now conceded part of what we sought in Committee in terms of access to information and to the means of communication. We do not regard the Government's concession as sufficient, and their explanation for failing to impose a requirement on manufacturers to provide information on goods in an accessible form is unconvincing.
The Government have fiddled a little with their definition of disability, but they have not addressed the central issue. The basis on which protection will be provided under the Bill remains—despite all our efforts—a narrow, medically based definition of disability, and we are therefore disappointed. The real issue is that discrimination arises from prejudice more often than from medical assessments. People need protection from prejudices against disability, whether those prejudices are based on an accurate assessment of a medical condition or on ignorance alone, as we have found so often in discussing the matter.
The Government have added some substance to the definition of what arrangements employers should make to support disabled employees. Those may be helpful to employers and to disabled people alike, although we would be anxious to ensure that the examples of appropriate steps are not interpreted as an exhaustive list—far from it.
The most important concessions have been achieved on transport and education, and we heard about those matters this afternoon. We have argued from the beginning that it made no sense to exclude disabled people from those gateways to opportunity in a measure intended to outlaw disability discrimination. We have argued for a programme to be introduced under which all public transport vehicles should be made accessible. Ministers have fought a long rearguard action against that, but they have finally conceded defeat today and we welcome that. Not only do we welcome the inclusion of road and rail transport, but we look forward to that principle being embraced by fishing and ferry services as well.
I do not underestimate the achievement of this House in producing the measure—why should I? It is a great credit to the democratic processes of our parliamentary representative government that we have squeezed those concessions at almost the 11th hour from the Government. We welcome the access to vehicles such as buses and trains, but—as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) eloquently argued—we want the measure to apply to ferries and shipping services as well.
All this has not been achieved by sleight of hand. I welcome sincerely the presence in the Chamber of the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott), for whom I have the highest regard. I believe that, within the ministerial restraints and constraints which exist, the right hon. Gentleman fought hard to achieve the measures which have been announced tonight. My only regret is that, as a distinguished parliamentarian, he was not able to speak on behalf of the Government today. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman should be very proud of his achievements, and we recognise that.
I also pay tribute to the input of my hon. Friends the Members for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) and for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) who, in introducing their private Members' Bills, clearly provided a lever which compelled the Government to recognise public opinion and the opinions of the House.
I recognise that we in the Labour party have had support on the issues from hon. Members from other parties, including the hon. Members for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and for Rochdale (Ms Lynne). The hon. Lady fought her corner superbly in Committee. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and hon. Members from all political opinions in Northern Ireland have been absolutely firm in their demands on the issue, and they have every reason to be proud of themselves.
It would be an absolute omission were I not to mention my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), whose name will always be associated with civil rights for disabled people. When some people were questioning at an early stage whether two Bills could be debated in one Session of Parliament, my right hon. Friend was steadfast, forthright and determined. As always, my right hon. Friend represents the very best in the all-party group which deals with disability.
The hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) played a noble part today in inviting the Government to introduce their concessions, and he can associate himself with those achievements also.
The issue of transport remains important and, although we welcome the concessions, we will be watching what happens in another place where noble Friends such as Lord Ashley, Baroness Masham and others who have fought so often and so hard on the issues will be vigilant.
I wish briefly to refer to the issue of taxis, which we were not able to address on Report because of the procedures of the House. I realise that the Minister and the House are facing a difficult situation in which there are strong opinions on both sides. The achievements in London ought to be applauded, and they could represent a model for elsewhere. However, strong representations have been made on the issue, not least by some hon. Friends, including the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin).
The excellent Employers Forum on Disability, whose representatives I met the other week in the presence of Bill Morris of the Transport and General Workers Union, advised us to look cautiously at the issue of taxis. There are two opinions on taxis, and I hope that we will have reached by the end of our deliberations the consensus which disability—outstanding among all other issues—seems to attract.
The House is at its best on disability issues, and today's debate has been no exception. I am sure that the debate on taxis will continue, and I would like to assure my hon. Friends and many others that we recognise that there are at least two separate views on the issue.
On education, the Government recognised the force of our arguments, and I look forward to the details of the new rights for disabled students which the Minister mentioned yesterday. I welcome also the obligation on individual schools and colleges to say what they will do to improve access. Having argued the point yesterday, I accept that there is a big responsibility on them to do so. We hope that suitable enforcement procedures will be introduced at the same time, so that those institutions that do not make adequate provision are placed under some obligation to improve matters within a reasonable time.
On education and transport, we will watch closely to see how clause 12 will be redrafted. We want the total exemption of those services to be replaced by a clear statement that they are subject to the law in the same way as other service providers. Of course, we accept that particular provision must be made for what must be done when, but it is essential that the new version of clause 12 clearly establishes the principle that those services are under a duty not to discriminate.
In spite of the Government's concessions on transport, education and so forth, they remain stubbornly opposed to the most important change that Opposition Members—with some support from Conservative Members—have suggested, which is to give adequate enforcement powers to the Government's proposed National Disability Council. Until they do so, no matter how much the Bill may be improved in its scope and coverage, it will not be adequate because it will not provide disabled people with the powerful backing required to eliminate discrimination.
Although Parliament has indeed been at its best, even given the fact that we did not achieve all that we wanted, sadly the same could not be said of the British media. The Guardian today made up for lost ground in a very interesting leader entitled, "Enabling the Disabled", which appealed to the Minister as much as it did to me. One or two of the profound comments in it are relevant to this debate. It said:
For 15 years they
the Government—

could see no discrimination, hear no discrimination, nor smell no discrimination against disabled people. Then, hey presto, they were faced with a private member's bill in the last parliamentary session which they were only able to stop by ordering backbench sycophants to torpedo it"—

Mr. Berry: Where are they now?

Mr. Clarke: As I was about to say, they are not much in evidence tonight. I have looked in vain for the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), but I think that she got the message last time around.
The Guardian concluded appropriately by saying:
What is needed—as the history of race and sex discrimination demonstrates—is an enforcement agency. Even Conservative supporters—see last week's Guardian Society—are insisting on this change. Peers take note. Without it, the whole edifice collapses.
I could not have put it better myself.
We have taken into account the views and pledges that the Government have expressed and we do not want to be churlish. I am confident that the Government will come under renewed pressure on the matter in another place. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) set his colleagues an example last night and today, which others may follow if this matter comes back from another place as a result of a successful amendment, or perhaps more than one.
Opposition Members will certainly continue to set a high priority on the means of enforcement and on turning good intentions into real progress. If we achieve that, whatever the other limitations of this legislation, we will have gone a long way towards making this the year of disabled people's rights. Unless and until we do, the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East, will remain the best hope for progress and I say so proudly as one of his colleagues.
We shall not, however, oppose the Third Reading of this Bill, weak and inadequate though it remains, despite the concessions that I welcomed—I do not want to be churlish about them. However, we look forward to seeing it much improved before it is placed on the statute book. We hope that the House will have a further opportunity to consider some of those improvements.
We accept that the most important concessions achieved are those on transport and education, but we hope that, when the Bill goes to another place and in the intervening weeks or months, the Government will have the opportunity to reflect not simply on our debates but on the views of organisations of and for disabled persons—heavens, we all admire them. In that cold January day on the eve of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East, they stood in cold Westminster Hall, sending green cards to Members, some of whom responded—some did not. They did not even have access to loudspeaker equipment. I hope that the people there that day and the many other disabled people and carers who organised similar events and meetings throughout the country will feel that at the end of the day, despite their misgivings and their understandable scepticism, there is yet something to be said for representative parliamentary democracy. In that spirit, and as a tribute to them, we will not oppose the Third Reading, but will act with vigilance on the events that take place.

Sir John Hannam: In the same spirit as the spokesman for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), I am pleased to follow what he said and I am pleased that the Third Reading will not be opposed. We have had two fruitful days of consideration of this important Bill and, although the Government were not able to concede on two of the early issues—the commission and the small firms exclusion figure—since then, thanks to the willingness of my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People to discuss and negotiate improvements with us, the Bill has been much improved and strengthened. The key areas of education and transport are now included and my hon. Friends the Ministers in both those Departments are to be thanked.
The provision of information, definitions of disability and the history of disability, leave of absence at work and other employment assistance are now included and other improvements, through Government amendments, have all combined to make this anti-discrimination legislation a truly historic step forward for disabled people.
Towards the end of today's debate, we found that we were unable to discuss two important areas—civic rights, on which I was hoping to move some amendments, and leave of absence provisions. I will touch on those so that my hon. Friend the Minister can deal with some of the issues that we would have raised.
The leave of absence provisions, on which the Government moved amendment No. 120, relate to responsibilities that employers must have for their disabled employees or those who may become disabled while working and who may need a period of leave for rehabilitation or retraining. We also recognise that a newly disabled person, even after rehabilitation, might not be able to continue in the same employment.
The provision of leave of absence as a part of reasonable adjustment is the motivation behind such options as disability leave, which was an initiative developed by the Royal National Institute for the Blind and was launched less than two years ago by the then Secretary of State for Employment, who is now Secretary of State for Education.
The pilot scheme has enjoyed widespread support from employers and organisations representing disabled people. The steering group includes the Midland bank, Barclays bank, the Employers Forum on Disability, the Trades Union Congress and the Department of Employment, in addition to the various disability organisations. It would have been incomprehensible not to have recognised the potential of that initiative by including in the Bill provisions to enable disability leave to be given. I welcomed, therefore, Government amendment No. 120, which we unfortunately did not have a chance to debate in any detail. I put that on the record because it is an important part of the changes to the Bill today.
Civic rights, as I term them, were the other important issue that we did not discuss because of pressure of business. The amendments on the Order Paper were aimed at providing disabled people with reasonable access to the process of politics and the justice system. One was designed as a probing measure, to ensure that adjustments

are provided under part III of the Bill, if required by disabled persons, to enable them to serve as an elected or appointed member, for example as a Member of Parliament or a councillor, or if required by a disabled person wishing to make representations to an elected or appointed person. For example the law debars a deaf and dumb person from standing as a parliamentary candidate. There is only one elected deaf councillor, despite the wonderful example in this place of the co-chairman of the all-party disablement group, the noble Lord Ashley.
Another area which we could not discuss today was access to the justice system. It is vital for disabled people to gain full access to the judicial system and legal proceedings. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister said that the Bill covered the judicial system and legal proceedings and that the design of new Crown and county courts should enable disabled people to have independent access into and within those buildings. While "The Court Standard and Design Guide" states that all new court rooms and those undergoing significant alterations must comply with part M of the building regulations, that does not deal with the problem of access to existing court rooms. The building regulations do not cover many of the adaptations and facilities that would be required by disabled people in court, nor do they specify monitoring and maintenance—many of the sound enhancement schemes for hard of hearing people installed under part M do not work. A survey carried out by the Lord Chancellor's Department in 1993 showed that 44 per cent. of Crown and county courts had inaccessible main entrances; 59 per cent. had no disabled toilets; and only 6 per cent. had facilities for deaf and hard of hearing people.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister would have wished to comment on those points, had he had an opportunity to do so, and I hope that he will accept the concerns felt by disabled people about problems of access to courts, justice and juries.
A year ago, I and my colleagues on the all-party disablement group were desperately trying to persuade the Government to adopt positive anti-discrimination legislation. As the hon. Member for Monklands, West described, it took a long, hot summer of campaigning and applying pressure, with lobbies of Parliament, marches, demonstrations and debates in the House. But following the personal intervention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, together with the previous Minister responsible for disabled people, who was in the Chamber a few moments ago, we began to see some progress. A somewhat inadequate consultation document first appeared on the scene. That changed for the better into a nearly satisfactory Bill and White Paper. Now, having filled the gaps during Report, we have reached the point where a good measure is heading for the other place, where a number of further changes will no doubt be implemented by members of the all-party group, which is more than adequately represented there.
Many hon. Members are still committed to the private Member's Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which will also continue its progress through the House. As one of those supporters, I believe in the old adage that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. This Bill has now become a nice plump bird and is on its way to the statute book before the summer is out. I therefore congratulate all those who have worked so hard, both within Parliament and in all those organisations outside. I hope that they regard their efforts as well rewarded.
I therefore hope that the House will give this landmark Bill an unopposed Third Reading.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I was deeply moved, as others on both sides of the House must have been, by the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). He has shown a shining sincerity in arguing the claims of disabled and other needful people from the day that he entered the House. He is worthy of the highest admiration, and his Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), is also entitled to our deepest respect. He has brought enormous skill, humanity and commitment to his new sphere of responsibility, and I thank him most warmly for all that he has contributed to our debates on the Bill.
The Bill was heralded as an historic advance for disabled people. In fact it marks only the end of an historic retreat from contemporary standards of protecting disabled people across the developed world. We used to lead the world in legislating on new help for disabled people; for example, in legislating on access to the built environment, the first country ever to do so, 25 years ago. We pioneered as well, also in the 1970s, such entirely new benefits as the mobility allowance, the disabled housewife's allowance and the invalid care allowance.
The Government's measure is, of course, their latest attempt to assuage the public outrage provoked by the wholly scandalous tactics used to obstruct the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill ever since I drafted and first presented it to the House in 1991. There were no less than three personal statements of unreserved apology for misleading the Speaker and this House in debates on the Bill. They were three of only four such statements that I have witnessed in 31 years as a Member of Parliament.
There are those who ask today why, now that the Government have been dragged kicking and screaming to accept the necessity of legislation, we do not just welcome them as repentant sinners and work further to amend and improve their, by common consent, pallid alternative to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. That is not my description; it is how disabled people themselves have described the Government's Bill as compared with our Bill.
A woman who is well disposed to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill wrote to me recently to say:
Now that you have won and the Government at long last are having to legislate, why don't you simply claim victory and amend their Bill to your liking?
Nothing would have been more agreeable to me than to have been able further to amend, at will, the Government's proposals and thus to end the parliamentary battle I began in 1979 when I appointed the Committee on Restrictions Against Disabled People under the chairmanship of Sir Peter Large. But changes to their Bill on the scale required to make it acceptable to disabled people have proved impossible. Even had they not been, why, having invented the wheel, should we have had to waste time trying to adapt the Government's unacceptable imitation of one?
As well as attempting to make the Government's Bill more acceptable, are we not right to go on trying to enact our own? Another question posed is why, even if we are unable further to improve the Government's Bill, can we not accept what is on offer as a major step forward after

13 years of systematic obstruction and then, in the years ahead, build on what their Bill achieves? But in the view of disabled people and those who work to help them, parts of the Government's Bill will actually increase discrimination against disabled people.
They cite first the Government's proposal to end the 3 per cent. jobs quota, which they argue will undoubtedly make matters worse. The Rights Now campaign, whose affiliates include the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People, cites as well the Government's pointlessly complicated and over-restrictive definition of discrimination. It attacks what it calls
The Government's complete failure to understand how disability discrimination works.
It also states:
The Government's Bill contains a host of defences and potential justifications for discriminatory treatment which are not present in the legislation on sex and race. The accumulated effect of these loopholes will render it almost impossible for a disabled person to challenge discrimination.
Such pointed criticism leaves scant room for any doubt about what Britain's 6.5 million disabled people think of the assumption that the Government's Bill will solve most of their problems.
The measure we have been debating today is but piecemeal reform. It attempts to divide the indivisible. Look at the employment problems of disabled people, not least those of the blind, of whom the Royal National Institute for the Blind says only 17 per cent. are in work. That figure is a shocking comment on the avoidable hardship inflicted on them.
The employment prospects of blind and other severely disabled people will only be improved if, while removing discrimination against them, we recognise also the importance to disabled people of improving their access to better training opportunities, among other essential requirements which must be met if more and more of them are to end their dependence on social security and enjoy the dignity of becoming taxpayers. Yet this is not what the Bill achieves.
That is why Members in all parts of the House will go on insisting on stronger and more enforceable protection for Britain's 6.5 million disabled people. That is also why our campaign will go on for as long as it takes to secure full civil rights and equal citizenship for them. Without the rights that everyone else can take for granted, disabled people are doubly disabled. The handicapping effects of their disabilities are made even harder to bear by preventable social handicaps for which there is no moral justification.
Why on earth should disabled people any longer have to put up with rights inferior to those of everyone else and inferior as well to those enjoyed by disabled people all across the developed world? I refer, among other countries, to New Zealand, Australia, the United States, Canada, Japan, Germany, France and Sweden. Why should the Government here have assumed for so long that employers in all those countries are more capable than British employers of contributing to the achievement of social progress for disabled people? It is because our disabled fellow citizens should no longer have to put up with inferior rights that the campaign for the social fairness they crave must go on; and, Mr. Deputy Speaker, go on it will.

Ms Lynne: I am delighted that the Government have changed their minds on several aspects of the Bill, particularly on education and transport. I am also pleased by their decision to extend the definition in clause 1 to cover people with a history of illness or disability. That is a step in the right direction. We must not lose sight of the fact, however, that they have not moved a lot on other parts of the Bill. In fact, the Government have failed to respond to the majority of the amendments that we tabled in Committee and on Report.
I cannot count the number of amendments that other hon. Members and I tabled in Committee. Ministers remained immovable on all of them. They did not accept any amendments to do with education and transport, but I am pleased that they accepted certain changes on Report. The Government have bowed to pressure from all the disabled people's organisations that have lobbied them and those hon. Members who have worked over the months to ensure that improvements relating to transport and education were included in the Bill.
Those changes are a triumph of democracy over dogma, but the Government have not changed their mind on much. They gave way slightly on small businesses, but they have not moved on the call to establish a commission. It was extremely important that we should have had an organisation with teeth, rather than the mere advisory council that the Government proposed. I am grateful, however, that the Government agreed to extend the definition in clause 1 to cover someone with a history of mental illness.
I continue to believe that disabled people will feel extremely let down by the Bill, as will carers. In Committee we discussed the problems that carers had, and I was disappointed tonight that we did not get round to debating in the House the amendments especially relating to carers. I was sorry that those amendments were withdrawn without debate. I hope that they will be retabled and debated in the Lords, because an immense number of carers have lobbied hon. Members, and they have some very serious problems of discrimination relating to their caring duties.
I know that the Government will prevent the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill from obtaining its passage through the House, and I am sorry about that. I am sad, because that is the Bill that we should pass into law in future. The Disability Discrimination Bill is welcome as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. However much we debate the Bill and however much it is amended in the Lords, disabled people will continue to be denied their basic human rights, whatever the Government say.
The way in which Ministers and the Government have moved on certain amendments is a step in the right direction, but they were forced to take those steps, sometimes at the last minute; suddenly there was an announcement from Ministers. In the past two days—

Mr. Paice: indicated dissent.

Ms Lynne: The Minister shakes his head, but we had an announcement about education yesterday and an announcement about transport today—a last-minute conversion. The Government did not move in Committee,

so they were forced to move by all the pressure that they had from hon. Members and from disabled people throughout the country.
However, I continue to believe that the Government have not gone far enough, especially as regards the commission. There is no point in legislation unless it has teeth. I hope that the Government will not suppose that they have done enough. Disabled people will continue to fight because they want the same equality as everyone else. They do not want more; they do not want less; they want the same. I believe that they have a right to expect that and that they deserve no less.
Although I welcome some of the movement by the Government, I wish that they had gone further.

Mr. Pickthall: Several of my hon. Friends want to speak, so I shall confine myself to revisiting the announcements that the Minister made yesterday about the education part of the Bill. Incidentally, I complain that, that important debate having been confined to one hour, more than half of that hour was taken by the Minister giving us some interesting and important new thoughts, which we did not have time properly to consider.
It is obvious, from column 746 of yesterday's Hansard, that the Minister considers that the existing Education Act 1993 and the code of practice do the business in respect of integration into mainstream schools. He complained that the new clauses that were tabled by hon. Members would cut across the provisions of the 1993 Act. However, in column 750, his proposals to amend the 1993 Act within the Disability Discrimination Bill in substantial ways were revealed, so that, in any case, the Minister's proposals cut across the 1993 Act. We shall in effect have two separate Acts controlling access to schools for disabled young people. It is important that that is carefully considered before it goes to the other place.
The Minister also said that the Government's measures have given an enormous boost to special education. That is fine; I accept that, but they have also presented councils with enormous resource problems and resources have not been forthcoming in sufficient quantities from the Government to enable local education authorities to put into practice what the 1993 Act expects.
The Minister did say—I agree with him entirely—that integration into mainstream education is not a simple issue of parental choice. Of course it is not; but does he not recognise that section 21 of the 1993 Act includes that phrase "efficient use of resources" as the universal caveat by which local authorities have a let-out from providing mainstream education for many disabled pupils? Many local authorities have been able to make progress only where such provision has been tied to statementing provision, with all its legal implications. They cannot even keep up with the legal requirements of statementing, never mind make further progress.
We must bear in mind the revenue consequences of integration. As long as mainstreaming is expected of local education authorities while resources continue to be cut and as long as the 1993 Act contains a caveat enabling LEAs to use the shortage of resources as a reason to refuse mainstream provision, many parents will have no choice and no system of redress. I do not blame local authorities for that in many instances. Nor do I blame the many


schools that resist taking students with disabilities because they cannot accommodate them, in terms of either physical access or revenue.
There are frequent cases in which there is a conflict between the two parties, the parents and the school LEA, and both sides might well be right. There have been many cases, including that of Chloe McCollom from Lewisham, a Down's syndrome child who has not been provided with a place in mainstream education, Emma and Alison Gibbs from Suffolk, who also suffer from Down's syndrome and have not been given places in mainstream secondary education, Zahrah Manuel in Campden, Angharad Duffield in Avon and Nicky Crane in my constituency. Two more cases were discussed in today's edition of The Guardian involving Natalie Dance of East Sussex and Alan Dean—I think the name is an alias—in the west midlands. All those children are disabled in one way or another. Their parents are desperate to get them into mainstream education and are having to fight their battles with no back-up. There will still be no back-up for them once the Bill is passed if it remains as the Minister intends.
The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People seemed to assume yesterday that the new clauses proposed by hon. Members on both sides of the House were meant to abolish special schools, but that is not so. The Minister was right to say at column 746 of yesterday's Hansard that not all disable children be integrated into mainstream education and that some parents prefer special schools. However, if the Minister assumes that the improvement of the range of choice by legal back-up will mean that most or all parents of disabled children will opt for mainstream education, that should tell him something about what parents want for their children.
The Minister continued by saying that it was absurd or impossible for local authorities to spread their access provisions too thinly. He said:
Instead of several schools in an authority, each with excellent resources, being able to take many pupils with a wide range of special needs, we would end up with nearly all schools in that authority with a few ramps, no lifts and improved curriculum access for only a small minority of pupils … It is certainly not what the Government want".—[Official Report, 27 March 1995; Vol. 257, c. 747.]
I understand what the Minister is talking about in terms of shortage of resources, but he is also talking about the creation of ghetto schools, which have the resources to provide for children with disabilities and special needs. That would remove choice for thousands of parents and children. Parents will have to remove their children from education in their own communities and ship them across to another part of the local authority area to a school that has the necessary resources or they will not have a choice at all. Making full access the norm rather than the exception will take a long time. The Minister's statement yesterday seemed to suggest that it should not even start. As he said,
It is certainly not what the Government want".
When the Bill goes to the Lords, the Minister must confront the issue of increasing selection in our schools, particularly secondary schools. Only yesterday, Manchester grammar school said that it wanted to come back into the fold and be a state school, but only on the strict understanding that it would control its selection process. Up and down the country there is evidence,

particularly in grant-maintained schools, that selection is taking place on all sorts of strange grounds, not just academic ability.
The Minister said that schools will have new responsibilities to report to parents—and presumably to local authorities and to the Secretary of State—about improvements in disabled access. That is a good move which we must welcome. However, in those circumstances, schools will merely have to ensure that they are not out of step with other schools. Schools that do not want to go to the trouble of admitting disabled students could ensure that the description of their facilities is not good or is even offputting. I believe that we need an enabling legal framework and back-up for parents who come up against those problems, which will continue to exist under the Bill as it is now constituted.
The Minister also made some interesting, and I think on the whole encouraging, announcements in response to the detailed concerns that were advanced by Labour Members in Committee about access to further and higher education. I do not have time to deal with them in detail but, as the Minister mentioned part-time access yesterday, I must ask about the chance of making the disabled students allowance available for part-time students. That is a major problem. Many students must study part time because the nature of their disability prevents them from studying and progressing at the same speed as non-disabled students.
The Minister said that he would require colleges to provide access to disabled students "as a condition of grant". That is a tremendous step forward. The Minister also mentioned the duty of the Further Education Funding Council to report to the Secretary of State, which I think will prove an interesting control mechanism.
The Minister's proposals for higher education are also fascinating. In the areas of both further and higher education, he seemed to suggest that students who are denied access to a college on the ground of disability will have the right to appeal to the Further Education Funding Council. Why does the Minister object to our idea of a commission if, in the area of education at least, he is proposing the FEFC as a kind of education commission?
There is a potential for ghettoisation in further education. The Minister said yesterday that we could not spread access too thinly across colleges. However, FE colleges, by their nature, are local and provide services for local people. As Skill observed, it is not acceptable to have to transport people 60 miles to the nearest accessible college. I hope that that problem will be addressed properly in another place.
The measures that the Minister has announced in relation to the education part of the Bill at least respond to the concerns expressed in the Committee and, to that extent, they are welcome. I hope that, before he sends those measures to another place, he will take into account the sorts of problems about which I have talked this evening and to which we referred at leisure and in more detail in Committee.

Mr. Berry: Nine months is a short time in politics. Nine months ago, no one could have foreseen that today we would be debating the Third Reading of a Government Bill making it unlawful to discriminate against disabled


persons. After all, nine months ago the Government blocked a measure which enjoyed cross-party support and which would have achieved precisely that aim.
The Government told us that education and persuasion would work; they told us that they could not possibly legislate in this area. They then said that it was quite incompatible with the thrust of deregulation policy to legislate for civil rights for disabled people. They then said that it would cost £17 billion to outlaw discrimination against disabled persons.
I have welcomed the fact that the Government have moved ground over that nine-month period. I mean that genuinely, as, I am sure, does everyone else, but it would be welcome if they acknowledged that they were misleading people nine months ago when they said that it would cost £17 billion to legislate to outlaw discrimination. It was pointed out by the all-party group at the time and by every independent observer that that figure, which was repeatedly quoted on and off the record, was a gross distortion of the cost of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. I am prepared to acknowledge the substantial movement in the Government's position on that issue, but they should acknowledge that they misled people last year and that disabled people's organisations in particular deserve an apology.
The outcome of the Government's consultation exercise in the summer was that, of those who offered a view on the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, 98 per cent. wanted the Bill, which was originally introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), for whom I have the greatest respect, and which is currently being promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes).
There are serious problems with the Government's Bill and they will not go away. The definition of disability is still too narrow. When I came here today, I thought that I would have to argue that the Government should include within their definition those who have a record or history of impairment and those who are regarded as having such an impairment. I immediately acknowledge with gratitude—perhaps gratitude is the wrong word—

Mr. Neil Gerrard: Just acknowledge.

Mr. Berry: I acknowledge the fact that the Minister now recognises that those who have a record of impairment should be protected by anti-discrimination legislation, but that still leaves those who are regarded as having such an impairment. In particular, it leaves those with a diagnosed but as yet asymptomatic condition: people with multiple sclerosis, a genetic illness, Alzheimer's disease, or HIV infection. Those people do not have a symptomatic condition that would qualify them for protection under the Bill, but surely they should be protected by it.
We debated the small firms exemption at some length. Equity demands that if our legislation to outlaw unfair discrimination on the grounds of gender and race does not provide a small firms opt-out, neither should legislation that is designed to protect disabled people.
The Bill offers us a blank piece of paper on transport. This time last year we were accused of being vague in our transport proposals in the Civil Rights (Disabled

Persons) Bill, which vagueness, we were told, made the Government uncomfortable. We have been asked today to accept from the Minister a blank piece of paper as the Government's clauses relating to transport in the Bill.
The omission of a commission is the crucial error. The more the Government have taken on board some of the points that we have made in recent years, the greater has become the need for a commission. I have paid my eight quid to the Bow Group to buy Jonathan Kaye's pamphlet. I did not read its summary in The Guardian—I sent off good money for it. Jonathan Kaye was arguing, as a Conservative, that it would be nonsense to claim that the Disability Discrimination Bill can effect true equal opportunities for disabled people if there is not a commission to investigate complaints and to enforce people's rights.
I urge the Government to take on board a whole range of omissions that we highlighted before Committee, during Committee and again on Report—above all, the fact that without a mechanism to enforce the law, without something akin to a disability rights commission, the Bill will not be effective. If the Government are serious about outlawing discrimination, they must will the means to do so. If they are prepared to make concessions in another place, disabled people will be far happier than they are at present. Disabled people feel that the Government have made a move in the right direction but that they have not moved far enough—much remains to be done.

Mr. Wigley: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), who has played such an important part in bringing this subject to the fore through his Bill and his work with the all-party group.
A succession of hon. Members have taken up the baton. A parallel Bill is being promoted by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) and I wish that many of its provisions were included in this final version. I say that this is the final version but, of course, it is not.
Nor, I suspect, is this the last time that we shall discuss the Bill, even though this is a Third Reading debate. We shall need a great deal of time in July to debate the Lords amendments, assuming that the new clauses promised by the Minister relating to education, transport and other issues are tabled in another place. We shall need time to apply ourselves to any further amendments when the Bill returns to the House in due course. This is adieu but not farewell, or whatever the appropriate saying is.
We should put on record the support that we have received from disability organisations and from disabled people themselves, who have campaigned vigorously for many years for progress to be made in the relevant legislation. The legislation that will reach the statute book will not be everything that they want but it is a step in the right direction. The Minister has succeeded in making more progress than appeared possible on Second Reading. Nevertheless, some important provisions still need to be tightened, not least that relating to the commission, which has been mentioned by several hon. Members.
It is not realistic to expect individual disabled people to go to court and fight on an ad hoc basis to get their rights. There must be a structured approach. If the Government have not seen the light during the passage of the Bill, I hope that this will be one of the first things taken up by an incoming Government after the general election.
I am still unhappy about a number of the Bill's provisions. I think especially of the problem of small companies. At the end of yesterday's debate on companies employing fewer than 20 people, the Minister said that it would be possible to have a "zero option"—or effectively a zero option—in the regulations. I hope that the Government will be prepared to review the situation not over five years but perhaps over a couple of years to ascertain how the small companies provision is working and will use the flexibility that they have given themselves with the order-making provision to include if not a zero option then an option relating to firms employing even one employee. That will effectively mean that the Bill will apply to every company.
As the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) said, we skipped over Government amendment No. 120, which gives examples of the adjustments that employers should be making for disabled people. It is not clear who will bear the cost of the provisions listed. Will any expenditure come from the public purse or will it land on the employer himself? It is an important matter that should have been dealt with earlier.
I am also worried about the position of carers. We did not have the opportunity to deal with this topic earlier because of the pressure of time. I am concerned that carers may be subject to discrimination when they are working on behalf of and are involved with disabled people. This could arise in the provision of goods and services—an amendment was tabled in this regard—and in the context of employment.
The work undertaken by carers is of immense benefit to disabled people. We are trying to ensure that disabled people are not discriminated against because of their disability and I should hope that that spirit would extend to people who give their lives to disabled people by being carers.
The Bill will go through to the other place. We know that many Members in the other place have tremendous experience of many aspects of the work with which we are dealing. We know that the other place passed a civil rights Bill way before we got to this one. We can look forward to the other place positively amending the Bill to make it stronger.
I hope that, some day, the saga will be written of how the Government started off totally opposed to any anti-discrimination legislation, and of how, with a succession of movements, change took place. I do not want to score political points on that. I say hallelujah to the fact that change has taken place. I hope that change has not finished and that more progress will be made.

Mr. Barnes: I remind the House of the position on Second Reading. A reasoned amendment was tabled by the Leader of the Opposition. On a three-line Whip, that was carried by 27 votes—

Mr. Hague: It was defeated.

Mr. Barnes: I am sorry—it was defeated. The vote for the Government was made up entirely of Conservative Members. The vote that lost was made up of hon. Members from all other parties. When the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill received its Second Reading, it was carried by 175 votes to nil, and it had support from hon. Members on both sides of the House. Members on

both sides of the House supported the measure in early-day motions and were among its sponsors. It is clear that the principle of civil rights for disabled persons has clear support in the House when it is presented fully and when it is considered in line with the Government's measure.
Where does the measure before us, which is leaving now for another place, stand in comparison with the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill? I have always thought that three areas should be considered. The first is the definition of whom the measure applies to. The second is the measure's scope, including exemptions, to which the definition obviously also applies. The third is the enforcement of the legislation.
The Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill refers to 6.5 million people. There has never been any dispute about that. The Government have promised a further extension of the definition in another place. A "history of impairment" will be added to the definition, but not having a "reputation" for impairment. Many points in schedules considerably restrict and limit the definition.
The definition needs to apply to the discriminator. We should say that people cannot use the term "disabled" to discriminate anywhere in society. But that is not what the Government want. They want to try to define the people who, on technical grounds, will be considered to be disabled. They want employers and others to have the right to know whom that definition applies to. A massive distinction must be made between the two areas. The Government have never told us what the additional definitions that they have announced today will mean in terms of the 6.5 million figure.
There is the question of scope and exemption. Some of the exemptions have been removed by the Government or are in the process of being removed. Northern Ireland was exempted initially, but that was changed in Committee. Certain provisions in connection with property were exempted initially; they, too, were altered.
We have had statements on education and transport. Yesterday's statement is well worth considering in detail. We have already had some examination of it. What does it actually mean? I want the amendments in the other place to fulfil the objective. In interpreting the areas that are liable to be covered, one must be careful about the Minister's words. I am willing to bet that there will be a minimum interpretation of the words that have been given to us about education and transport. As has been pointed out, the employment adjustment is very minor. Perhaps the number 20 would not have been increased in any case, but now it is to be written on the face of the Bill. There are also extra exemptions, on which we have just voted.
Then there is enforcement, and the question of a disability rights commission. Last night I said that the biggest item on our agenda and the big vote before us would be the decision whether to have a disability rights commission. We lost that division by 13 votes, but such a body would have done more to transform the legislation than anything else. No adjustment that may occur here or in another place will have as great an effect, unless we can get a commission back on the agenda. As I have already argued, a commission would be a dynamic force not only in helping to implement measures but in extending the boundaries of what is covered.
Other issues covered by the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill have not been touched at all by the Bill before us. For instance, there are the provisions covering


polling stations. Those would have given us the opportunity to discuss civil rights and access to justice. Moreover, within them lies a most important principle: the building block of democracy is the ballot, and the ballot should be as open to disabled people as it is to everyone else.
Welcome as the changes and advances are, the Government's Bill is by no means good enough. The Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill should be let out of the cupboard and sent into Committee so that we can investigate it. As the Bill before us is likely to be passed and to become law, the original Bill will need altering because it will be able only to fill the gaps. We want the opportunity to begin to do that.
The movement supporting civil rights for disabled persons will now require legislation slightly different from the form in which it existed before. The Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill will have to amend, alter and transform the Disability Discrimination Bill when it becomes law—and the sooner the House can get down to that process the better.

Mr. Gerrard: I am glad to have the opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate. I welcome the changes that the Government announced yesterday on education and today on history and transport. Obviously we shall have to wait and see exactly what the amendments are like when they appear in another place, and especially how education is to be included, but there has been a significant shift and we welcome that.
There are still several problem areas, however, and I shall briefly describe one or two of them. The most glaring problem is that of enforcement, which has already been mentioned many times—the absence of a commission independent of the Government, with its own staff, able to set its own agenda and to help people directly by representing them, if necessary, at industrial tribunals and in court.
We should have learnt from our experience in operating anti-discrimination legislation through the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 what happens when people try to take cases as individuals, as the Bill will require them to do. It is difficult to take discrimination cases to industrial tribunals. Yes, as the Minister said yesterday, tribunals are becoming more familiar with the processes, but discrimination cases are still different from the bulk of cases that they hear.
Such cases have a low success rate, and in general employers will not admit that they have discriminated; indeed, it is extremely rare for one to do so. One of the key factors behind people who are successful in discrimination cases brought before industrial tribunals these days is their having gone through the process of a formal questionnaire. Clearly, that process is much more likely to be successful with proper advice and assistance. Even if the Minister is not prepared to concede the need for a commission, which I would ideally like to see, I hope that he will look very carefully at the processes that he says that he will put in place to assist people to bring cases.
There is still a glaring weakness in the Bill in relation to advertisements. We still have the provision that, if a discriminatory job advertisement appears, someone who

is disabled has to apply for the job, fail to get it and then be prepared to go to an industrial tribunal for action to be taken. That seems quite ludicrous. It ought purely and simply to be illegal for an advertisement which discriminates to be published. I trust that the Minister will look again at that because it is a clear, simple point and it ought to be possible to take it on board.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) has already pointed out the logic of the argument that, in widening the scope of the Bill by including education and transport, the Minister is strengthening the case for a commission able to act on behalf of disabled people.
I welcome the fact that history of a person's health will now be included in the definition for the purposes of the Bill. I understand that the Minister does not want a definition which is too wide and that it must be understandable. He said earlier that vagueness and uncertainty will not do, but that means that one needs to think about the levels of knowledge and understanding among people who are not necessarily expert.
I particularly want to mention again the plight of people with HIV or AIDS. The Terrence Higgins Trust pointed out that it is hard to define precisely what is symptomatic HIV, but medical knowledge is developing fast. Although lists have been developed for incapacity benefit, they are about conditions which stop people working. This Bill should be about allowing people to continue to work. The definition used for incapacity simply will not do.
The Bill is wide ranging. Despite improvements, however, gaps still exist. We welcome the changes, but I hope that when we consider the Bill again when it returns with amendments from another place some of those loopholes will have been plugged.

Dr. Godman: I have to be brief. I was not a member of the Committee which considered the Bill because I chose to be appointed to the Children (Scotland) Bill, which, in some instances, dealt with related matters.
I want to pick up on three issues. First, the omission of a commission is a grave error and seriously weakens the Bill. Secondly, with reference to observations made by the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) about the architectural faults to be found in many English magistrates and Crown courts, which present formidable problems for disabled people, may I tell him that the same holds for many of our courts in Scotland, which is deeply regrettable? I look forward to the day when, say, people with learning difficulties are treated, as are children, as vulnerable witnesses in our courts. If this Bill cannot deal with that objective in another place, perhaps the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 may be so amended.
Thirdly, the Minister said that we should raise our eyes from the details of the Bill. May I urge him and his colleagues to raise their eyes to Scotland, in particular to the passenger ferry services? In a Scottish context, to exclude ferry services from the transport provisions lately introduced to the Bill is an act of folly and insensitivity. People living on our islands catch CalMac ferries as others travel on trains and trams. The CalMac ferry timetable is a remarkable piece of delphic draftsmanship to many of us, but most islanders read it as if it were written by Catherine Cookson.
CalMac, which has its headquarters just down the road from me in Gourock, has a fairly good record of assisting people with disabilities. Nevertheless, I hope that the Minister will ensure that the deeply regrettable omission to which I have referred will be righted in the other place. The islanders who use the ferries on a daily basis, and particularly those who are disabled, deserve better than this. They may he few in number in terms of Scotland's population, but it is disgraceful that their essential travelling needs have been so grievously ignored by the Minister and his officials.
In conclusion, I urge the Minister to rectify the omission. I know that there would be problems if we were talking about international ferry services and that negotiations would have to take place with the International Labour Organisation and the International Maritime Organisation, among other international organisations. However, the Bill could be appropriately amended to cover our domestic ferry services in Scotland, in the interests of disabled islanders. They deserve no less from the Bill.

Mr. Corbett: I thank both Ministers for their patience and courtesy during all stages of the Bill. I thank my hon. Friends and the hon. Members for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) and, indeed, the hon. Members for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) and for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) and others for their contribution to the latest stages of the Bill.
I often regard Third Readings of Bills as rather like a great liner coming into port. In this case, I intend to be the noisy little tug at the back pushing it into the berth. I want to read something to the House.
We are convinced that persuasion and education alone will not bring about the changes that are needed; an attempt to change behaviour merely by changing attitudes is not a cost-effective option.
Those words were in a letter from Peter Large 13 years ago to the then Minister for the Disabled when he presented the report and recommendations of the Committee on Restrictions Against Disabled People established by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). In many senses, my right hon. Friend is the father, or perhaps the grandfather, of the Bill. He was aided by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), who tried so valiantly to promote a Bill last year, and my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), who picked up that torch this year.
I do not know whether Ministers have read the report of the Committee on Restrictions Against Disabled People. If they have, they have not understood what it argued. Their approach is, "What is the least that we can do?" rather than "What needs to be done?" What needs to be done is to give people with disabilities the rights, status and opportunities that able-bodied citizens have.
While we welcome the removal of the ability of Ministers to extend the exemption for small firms to firms with more than 20 employees, it is regrettable that there will be no phasing out of that exemption over a number of years.
We have had last-minute announcements of all these great things that are going to happen in education. As my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr.

Clarke) said, we need to see them written down. What the Minister said yesterday, as reported in Hansard, and what has been said by the Department of Education today, are just promises. They deliver nothing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) said.
We will never get rid of discrimination against children with disabilities who need to have their special needs met, on the basis of an extra 10 million quid—if it is a new 10 million quid—when school bids against school and council bids against council. Many schools, colleges and universities have needs and there ought to be a phased programme, as promised by the Government, so that over a number of years the resources will be provided to enable them to meet those needs.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West said, perhaps the greatest failing of the Bill is that the Government, in spite of the consensus view across the Chamber, have shied away from the critical element of enforcement—even enforcement of the modest steps in the Bill. The Government say that there should be enforcement on matters of race and gender, but that it is not needed when discrimination against people with different abilities is as rampant and persistent as it is in those two areas. I believe that that is a prize example of discrimination in a Bill which claims to tackle discrimination.
Yet again disabled people are to be treated as less than equal citizens. People with disabilities and their carers simply will not understand that second-class treatment. That is why they and their representative organisations much prefer and insist upon the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill which is being promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East.
All of us in the House have a duty now—we have had it for some time—to ask people with disabilities what they can do. We must provide them with the help to do it and treat them with respect for their different abilities and as equal citizens, rather than jumping to assumptions about what they cannot do. I do not believe that the Bill goes far enough to treat them as equal citizens. The Opposition know and believe that people with disabilities can do so much more than they are now allowed or are enabled to do. A new Labour Government will give them just those opportunities.

Mr. Hague: With the leave of the House, I should like to respond to the speeches made on Third Reading and try to deal with as many of the points raised as possible in the time remaining.
The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) responded to my opening speech by welcoming the fact that I announced changes during our proceedings with regard to the Government's intentions on the Bill. He said that it would be churlish not to welcome that, and it would be churlish of me not to welcome his lack of churlishness. Since the hon. Gentleman thanked all of those who have made the progress of the Bill possible, I must pay tribute to him and to his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). They have always put their case with clarity, and we have always been able to do business with them.
I join hon. Members in paying tribute to the work of my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scoot), who laid so many of the


foundations necessary to bring forward a measure of this kind. I can only add to the tributes listed by the hon. Member for Monklands, West my own thanks to the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice), who has been an indispensable part of the team. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.") I also thank the noisy bunch of parliamentary private secretaries who sit behind my hon. Friend, and the officials at the Department, without whom none of this would have been possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) welcomed the changes which were announced on Report, and asked about some specific points which were skated over earlier in the evening because of the lack of time. He also asked whether the law in this country debars what used to be called a deaf and dumb person from serving as a Member of Parliament. If my hon. Friend would like to inform me of the specific Act of Parliament that debars people who can neither hear nor speak from serving as Members, I would be happy to look into that. I am not aware of that Act.
My hon. Friend also asked about amendment No. 120—which was carried by the House but was not debated—as did the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). In Committee and during the consultation process, we picked up a number of concerns about the concept of reasonable adjustments. We want the law to be clear and understandable in that regard, and most of the details of reasonable adjustments have been given during the debates.
There are two particular items which amendment No. 120 brings into the Bill to which I shall draw attention. First, we have recognised the strength of the argument that an existing worker who becomes disabled should not have to apply formally for an existing vacancy that he or she could fulfil with a reasonable adjustment. As a result, we also include in our list the need to consider transfer to an existing vacancy.
Secondly, we have dealt with leave, by including a reference to absence for rehabilitation assessment or treatment. The Government amendment demonstrates that, once again, we listened to the matter raised in Committee and responded positively.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon also asked about costs and where they would fall in this regard. Access to work provides considerable help to disabled people and to employers in overcoming barriers to work. We are committed to reviewing the programme after its first year of operation, which ends in June. We will look closely at the aims and the targeting of the programme and its funding arrangements. Many adjustments will cost little or nothing. I cannot commit the taxpayer to open-ended funding of reasonable adjustments that employers will be required to undertake because of the new right, but we will look to see how the available resources can be used as effectively as possible to help disabled people to get and keep jobs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter also asked about the civic rights and duties questions, which were passed over earlier because of the speed of our proceedings. I

cannot do justice to the subject in the time available, but I will certainly write to him about that. The Government have already given a commitment in the consultation document to seek to increase the representation of disabled people on public bodies. We recognise the important role that the Government have in providing a strong lead.
On access to courts, I can confirm that the Bill imposes a duty on the legal system to make the services that it provides accessible to disabled people who are making or defending a claim. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor has a continuing refurbishment programme, in which buildings are upgraded, as resources and physical constraints allow. That programme includes improved facilities for disabled people, such as ramps, better court lay-outs and infra-red hearing enhancement systems. For example, the Royal Courts of Justice have recently been upgraded and now include stair lifts, which were not previously available.
The hon. Member for Monklands, West said that he hoped that 1995 would be a year of securing the rights of disabled people. There is no question but that, when we look back on 1995 and on the Bill, we will be able to say that this was when we really got to grips with the matter and put in place the mechanisms that will bring to an end what we have come to know as discrimination against disabled people.
I ask the House to remember, however, that the passage of the Bill, after it has been through another place and we have discussed the amendments made there, will not be the end of the process of stopping discrimination against disabled people. The Government, the National Disability Council and all interested parties will still have much to do to codify the duties, to ensure that the duties that we are placing on people are clear and comprehensible and, above all, to communicate to employers and service providers what their duties are and why Parliament has imposed those duties on them.
I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that that is a task in which hon. Members of all political persuasions will be able to join. We will always face the task and we must never forget the scale of the challenge. Surveys on public attitudes about discrimination against disabled people show that the overwhelming majority of people are against such discrimination, but they also think that they do not do it and that it is nothing to do with them. Passing this legislation will make an enormous difference, but the task of education, persuasion and communication will continue. People will need a means of redress, which we discussed last night, but the overwhelming majority of employers and service providers will comply with the law straight away, if they know what it is.
This is a landmark Bill. It sets this country on a clear, workable and unambiguous course to ending discrimination against disabled people. It will make a genuine difference to the opportunities and lives of millions of our fellow citizens and I hope that it will command the support of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Milk Marketing

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

10 pm

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Milk, that stable product to be found on doorsteps and in refrigerators around the nation, is not something which many people would immediately associate with black marketeering and bootlegging. However, the illegal trade in milk is now a growing problem for farmers, the dairy industry and its regulators.
The problem has arisen against a background of imposition on our dairy industry of a system of milk quotas in 1984, decided and enforced by the European Commission, which sought to limit the production of milk within the European Community to reduce over-capacity within the market and alleviate the need for subsidies.
I am on record in this House and elsewhere as having pointed out both the fallacy of the arguments that Britain contributes to the overall surplus of milk within the Community and the unfair way in which quotas were imposed on those same farmers whom we had encouraged for years to invest in new equipment and facilities to increase their output.
United Kingdom quota is below the level of our consumption. We are only 85 per cent. self-sufficient in milk and dairy products compared with Belgium, which is 111 per cent. self-sufficient; Denmark, which is 222 per cent. self-sufficient; the Netherlands, which are 225 per cent. self-sufficient; and Ireland, which is a massive 331 per cent. self-sufficient.
That is now milk under the bridge, as it were, as the United Kingdom dairy industry has come to terms with the quota system and the rather odd constraints that it imposes on British farmers. Surely it is time, however, that the quota system was brought more up to date and quotas were allocated more fairly than they were in 1984, as we are now in the single market, which implies the ability to transfer quota between member states. Will the Minister comment on that suggestion, which was supported at a recent meeting that I had with farmers in my constituency?
Rumours about the black market in milk began to surface in north-west England a few years ago and caused concern not only to the regulatory bodies but to other farmers and their representatives in the National Farmers Union. They have always taken the view that the law in that area should apply equally to all, and that any milk producer who suspects illegal practices should report those suspicions promptly to the appropriate authorities.
Following the abolition of the Milk Marketing Board, the number of reported movements of milk outside the quota system has increased. Higher milk prices have stimulated output of milk, and farmers have looked to lease quota from non-producers to expand their production. As a result, the demand for lease quota has risen dramatically, prices have become prohibitive and the temptation to sell illegally rather than pay super-levy has been seen, in some cases, as the only way out of the present dilemma.
The Intervention Board—the milk quota policeman—has received a significant number of calls on its fraud line reporting mysterious milk tankers arriving on farms at unusual times in the night. Following up many of those calls has revealed no sinister plot but has rather shown that,

under the new marketing arrangements, a number of different milk tankers operated by a range of companies are on the road.
Many purchasers of bulk supplies of milk, both for industrial processing, for example in cheese making, and for retailing, both through shops and doorstep deliveries, are buying and collecting milk from neighbouring farms in unorthodox but legitimate vehicles.
I hasten to add that the majority of British farmers and the majority of those in the dairy and food retailing industry are acting responsibly and lawfully. Together, they continue to supply the best and highest-quality milk products in the world.
The Milk Marketing Board, as Milk Marque was known prior to recent changes in the industry's structure, as well as the NFU, have collaborated fully with the Intervention Board to provide whatever information, records or other evidence they can. The Minister will know, however, that there appears to be a small number of producers at the fringe of the industry who supply a part of their production illegally for the retail trade.
I believe that the Intervention Board and the Minister are aware of a number of "milk rings", where a tanker arrives to take milk direct from a farm. It is then sold, sometimes unpasteurised, and often through a chain that is unsupervised by the usual quality and hygiene control mechanisms, to retailers and caterers in other areas. Such farmers are able to increase their income through the sales of such "black" milk while also avoiding the penalties that might otherwise be imposed upon them for exceeding the production limits set by their milk quotas.
Three hundred milk producers recently attended a meeting at Stafford to register their concern and growing anger that little, if any, effective action appears to be being taken to tackle what is now a widely acknowledged problem in the industry. It is particularly affecting the cream of the nation's milk-producing dairy land in south Cheshire and north Staffordshire, from where, it is now believed, milk is being traded on the black market to Birmingham and elsewhere in the west midlands.
In November 1994, the Intervention Board said that it was about to take proceedings, and went so far as to tell Milk Marque that it should not take any action against its members who broke their contracts with it in case that might prejudice the board's chances of successful criminal prosecutions. Four months have now passed, and there is increasing concern among law-abiding Milk Marque and NFU members, and other producers, that no action has been taken to date, and that there is every prospect that little will be done in the future.
If the quota regime is not enforced fairly, the orderly marketing of milk will break down, great strains will be placed upon the industry, and our reputation in Brussels for the enforcement of regulations will be tarnished.
I also invite my hon. Friend the Minister to comment on the situation in other European countries, whose adherence to European regulations and their recognition of the need to enforce them effectively leaves much to be desired. We know that only too well from our recent debates on the fishing industry.
Perhaps the Minister can tell us precisely what action the Intervention Board intends to take, when it intends to take it, and what excuses it has to proffer for the unacceptable delays which law-abiding producers have already been forced to suffer.
Let me remind the Minister that it is not just the dairy industry and the Government's reputation for enforcement that are at stake. Public health is also jeopardised by black marketeers, since their equipment and storage conditions cannot be properly monitored. They are operating entirely outside the normal hygiene and environmental health regulations.
The deregulation of the raw milk market, which took place just five months ago, has occurred at the same time as accelerating change in the retail market for liquid milk. As we know, doorstep delivery has sadly declined for many years. That decline has been hastened by continued price wars, including heavy discounting among major supermarkets. The dairy processing industry is going through a period of rationalisation because of over-capacity, and it has sought to blame the new marketing arrangements for milk for its present problems. Not all my farmers, I hasten to add, signed up with Milk Marque, which is itself not a monopoly as the old Milk Marketing Board was. In fact, there are now more than 40 players in the new free milk market, many of which are both customers and competitors of Milk Marque.
Dairy companies are buying about one third of the milk produced in England and Wales direct from farmers or sources other than Milk Marque. Deregulation was bound to bring change in its wake, and further change is to be expected once the GATT round commitments begin to be phased in from July 1995.
In conclusion, the United Kingdom has a natural climatic advantage in milk production, and a strong and innovative food and drink manufacturing industry. To benefit from those, we need to act decisively and immediately on the present black market in milk. The Government need to argue strongly for a more realistic and fairer milk quota allowance, a matter that is long overdue, and to explore options to ease up the quota system to enable quota to move to the most efficient production regions in the European Union, such as the United Kingdom.
I do not wish, and I suspect that other Members do not wish, British farmers and consumers to be placed at a disadvantage, and I urge the Minister to tackle those problems with vigour and immediacy.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jack): I first place on record my sincere congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) on winning the debate this evening and giving us an opportunity to review an important part of our agricultural activity—as she rightly says, at a time of considerable change in the dairy industry.
I am also grateful for the interest that has been shown in the debate by my hon. Friends the Members for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) and for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald), and it would be unfair of me to forget that we also have in our midst the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley).

Mr. Elliot Morley: That is very fair.

Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman says it is very fair. He may not entirely like one or two things that I might have to say in explanation to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton, who rightly drew our attention at the beginning of her remarks to some of the fundamental problems that have led us to the current position. Many of those relate to the history of milk quotas, and she does the House a service in enabling me to place some of those matters on the record.
It is often forgotten that the United Kingdom has never been self-sufficient in milk. Before we joined the European Union, we relied heavily on imports of cheese, butter and other milk products from our friends in the Commonwealth, principally Canada, New Zealand and Australia. After we joined the Community, our ability to produce milk was not encouraged by the then Labour Government, who, in the mid to late 1970s, did not adjust the green pound in a way that would have given the then support price mechanism the ability to encourage our dairy farmers to provide more milk.
Hence the fact that, once the constraint was removed, production leaped by about 10 per cent. between 1980 and 1983. However, when the Community introduced milk quotas to try to control the then rapidly increasing expenditure on intervention in milk products and the quota system came in, the base that was chosen was 1981. Sadly, although production had started to respond to the changes that the then Conservative Government had made, it was too late.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: My hon. Friend knows that that base was established, and we had to accept it, in 1984. However, it is 1995 now, and the position has changed dramatically. Much has changed in Europe. We are in the single market. It is ridiculous that in this day and age we should be only 85 per cent. self-sufficient and be disadvantaged and hampered by the base rate that was fixed way back in 1984. What efforts have the Minister or the Government made to change those matters in Brussels, and is it not about time that our farmers received a fair deal?

Mr. Jack: I have responsibility for the north Mercia region of the Ministry, in which my hon. Friend's constituency is located. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to go to a meeting of farmers in her area and announce the ending of milk quotas. The message coming loud and clear from our farmers is that they want to be able to use their efficiency and expertise to produce as much milk as the market allows.
My hon. Friend rightly asked earlier, and now presses me to say from the Dispatch Box, what we are doing. The answer is that my right hon. Friend the Minister is actively pursuing in Europe at present the concept of transferability. It does not seem likely that we shall see an immediate end to milk quotas in Europe, sad though that may be for the United Kingdom. We seek to maximise the opportunities for our farmers, and my right


hon. Friend is pursuing the aim of getting quota leased across the boundaries of the single market, which would be to the United Kingdom's advantage.

Mr. John Greenway: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Jack: I should like to make a little progress, if my hon. Friend will be patient a little longer.
We want to make progress, but other countries are not as reform-minded as we are. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton asked how others were doing. She will know that one of the problems has been trying to persuade other people to implement milk quotas properly. That is why countries such as Greece, Spain and Italy, the worst offender, now face about £2.5 billion worth of disallowance because they have not played by the rules and implemented milk quotas properly. We have the most developed market in terms of lease and sale in the Community, and we maximise the opportunity for the United Kingdom.
Wherever we can obtain even just a little extra quota, we have. In 1993, as part of the SLOM 3 settlement, we were able to deal with that matter and increase quotas for other producers by half of 1 per cent—another 70,000 tonnes. In a world where every little helps, we have managed to increase quota. Our continual pressure in Europe has led to a fall in the price of intervention butter. Other intervention prices have been reduced, and we have staved off further reductions in quotas. Equally, our robust stance on milk quotas in Italy has prevented further reductions.
We all understood the sense of injustice felt by our dairy industry. My right hon. Friend the Minister will continue to campaign robustly in Europe to try to assist with transferability of quota across Europe.

Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend is giving the House a frank and honest assessment of the overall position, but I want to tempt him further. It is becoming ever more clear that the efficiency of the United Kingdom's dairy farmers is also being penalised under the present arrangements. The butter fat content—the quality of the milk produced—is likely to trigger the super-levy this year. I am confident that, if the people of this country understood that we are not likely to exceed our quota in terms of volume, but in terms of the quality of milk produced, there would be even greater calls for some reform of the arrangements.

Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend reflects the frustration felt by some farmers because of the variations in the measurement of the butter fat content that were made towards the end of last year. There were some exceptional circumstances—there was a particularly mild run into the winter, and two different sorts of tests were used by different organisations. We have checked out those matters, and both scientific tests—the Gerber and the Rose Gottleib—are approved and accurate tests. We are considering and monitoring the results of those tests. It will not make a huge difference in terms of the super-levy.
The position relates far more to a surge in production associated with the change in the marketing regime, an increase in the price of milk, and a particularly good period for milk production at the end of the year. Those factors have affected our exceeding the quota more than the

question of testing. I will give way to the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe, and then I would like to make some progress.

Mr. Morley: The dairy industry in this country faces considerable problems because of the lack of application on the part of the Italians. I am not sure whether the Italians lease or sell quota in the same way as we do in the United Kingdom. If they do, the price of quota would reflect whether the Italians were applying the quota restrictions properly—if there is a very low price, clearly they are not applying the restrictions. Has the Ministry examined that situation, because it would indicate what is going on?

Mr. Jack: The fact that, until now, Italy has not implemented quotas properly makes it very difficult to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. Clearly, if milk quotas are not implemented properly—that was the subject of disallowance—there cannot be the same types of leased market arrangements that are in place in the United Kingdom. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Commission is pressing Italy for a clear statement by the end of the month as to what progress it has made.
I turn to the issue at the centre of my hon. Friend's speech: the question of black milk. We must bear it in mind that milk quotas lie at the heart of the matter—if there were no quotas, by definition there could not be production above quota or black milk. It is worth putting that fact on the record.
This year, the temptation to break the rules has been perhaps greater than ever before. The factors to which I referred a moment ago in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale—the rise in price, the change in marketing arrangements and the very good conditions for milk production at the end of last year—were too much of a temptation for some people who saw an opportunity to exploit the situation. For some farmers, conscious of the fact that they were facing the prospect of a big super-levy bill, the temptation to become involved in some of the practices to which my hon. Friend the Minister for Congleton alluded in her remarks was too great.
We took very seriously the reports which came to us about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton referred to the Intervention Board, which is now responsible for the administration of milk quotas. It set up the so-called fraud freephone to try to encourage an unencumbered stream of good-quality intelligence information, and it received up to 140 calls.
We have carefully examined all that intelligence and other information which farmers have imparted to people in the Ministry. Occasionally, it has been difficult to sift out the hoax or malicious calls, but all the calls that appeared to be genuine have been investigated thoroughly and properly. Those investigations are in the hands of a specialist team which has been created from members of the Intervention Board's anti-fraud unit and the Ministry's investigation branch.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Jack: I should like to give my hon. Friend the benefit of a full reply to her points. If there is time, I will give way to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) later.
The group of investigators comprises members of the Intervention Board's anti-fraud unit and the Ministry's investigation branch. They are experienced officers, who


have a long track record in investigating fraud and collecting the evidence needed to pursue criminal proceedings.
I understand what my hon. Friend said about the frustration felt because nothing appears to be happening. I visited the Intervention Board in order to investigate the matters personally, to meet some of the people who are involved in those exercises and to see whether meticulous investigations were being conducted. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept my assurance that I was satisfied with the efforts being made.
We must realise that, although there is a lot of rumour and discussion about fraudulent practices, we must work at securing solid, cast-iron evidence in order to bring criminal proceedings. As I said a moment ago, all leads are being followed. Tip-offs are very useful, but occasionally the people who have made allegations on television have been reluctant to come forward and provide information when pressed to do so.
It is a painstaking process to compile that sort of detail and I appeal, via my hon. Friend, to anyone who believes that he or she has information to come forward. We will certainly examine it. I have looked at some of the investigation and can assure my hon. Friend that it is very complex indeed. But complexity is not a barrier to progress, and we are fully aware of the importance of bringing cases to court as soon as possible.
I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that it is very important indeed that, when those prosecutions take place, they must be successful, because I believe that there is an element of deterrent in the success that we hope will come in that area. We do not want to have cases dismissed on the grounds of either technicality or lack of evidence.
The chief executive of the Intervention Board has assured me that good progress is being made on a number of cases. Investigation teams have selected target areas, and I can tell my hon. Friend that reports will be going to lawyers early in April for possible prosecutions to be considered. I hope that she will understand if I cannot at this stage go further about some of the areas on which she touched in her remarks, but I would not wish in any way to prejudice the investigations that have been made.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: I have just two small points that I would like to put to my hon. Friend. First and foremost, because of the quota system, it is an absolutely ghastly situation that farmer is having to inform on neighbour. We deplore the black market in milk, but we equally deplore the conditions that have made that situation arise. Secondly, will he accept as a point of principle that it is vital that a successful case is brought, because, unless there is confidence in the system of quotas that we currently have, and orderly marketing, the whole system will break down completely, which is not in the short term to anybody's advantage?

Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend's remarks correspond entirely with the comments that I have heard from farmers with whom I have had conversations about this subject. A very high proportion—I was about to say the totality—of farmers want to see these rules adhered to. They do not particularly like them, for the commercial reasons that we discussed earlier, but they do not want to see others getting away with breaking them.
I give my hon. Friend an assurance that we take these matters very seriously indeed. I have seen for myself the meticulous work that is being undertaken, and there is a clear understanding that good-quality prosecutions must be brought to make the point that it is something that we will not tolerate, but we want to see success when it comes to prosecution.
I agree with my hon. Friend that it is not nice when people in an industry have, if one likes, to tell other people what is going on, but sometimes peer group pressure can be effective in dissuading people from breaking the rules that she mentioned.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I wonder whether the Minister could ask his officials to carry out a mini-inquiry into the lease price, and what I call the freehold price, of quota in each of the deficit milk economies that form part of the European Union, because from that price we may learn much about what is happening in each of those markets.

Mr. Jack: I take the hon. Gentleman's point seriously. We have looked at our own market and at some of the more salacious stories that are circulating about all kinds of things, including football clubs buying up quota and rigging markets. I have genuinely found no evidence whatever as far as that is concerned.
As I said to the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe, in certain European Union countries that do not have a properly implemented quota system, it would be an extremely difficult task to undertake the kind of exercise that the hon. Member for Workington suggests. France has a highly centralised market that is different from ours. I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but in terms of providing the answer he wants, in certain cases it would be extremely difficult to do.
I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that we take seriously the fight against black milk. As I have said, real progress is in prospect on the timing of the reports. I shall do my best as things progress to keep her and hon. Friends with an interest in the matter informed, but we must let the investigating bodies get on with their work.
My hon. Friend concluded her remarks with an interesting observation on the nature of what has happened in the marketing of milk. In many of the recent discussions that we have had, people have ignored the fact that, under the old end user pricing system, one effectively had four different uses for milk and four different prices for the same raw material.
Many farmers felt a sense of injustice about that. They realised that, within the dairy industry, there was surplus capacity. We now have an opportunity to see a modern, efficient dairy industry emerge as part of the changes in milk marketing, and to see a proper system of pricing develop for milk. But above all, we want to see greater flexibility in the quota arrangements, transferability in Europe and, ultimately, the removal of the quota.
That would be the great reward for our dairy farmers: the efficient United Kingdom industry could have its head, and we would not be here at half-past 10 in the evening debating over-quota production and black milk. That is something that we do not want to see as part of our agricultural scene.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.